*****************************************************************
03/22/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.69
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 IRNA: US wants to cool down Israel through talks with Iran - Pak ana
2 IRNA: Asefi refutes US claims on al-Qaeda presence in Iran
3 IRNA: UNSC member states confer on Iran's nuclear dossier 
4 IRNA: US would not go for war against Iran: Pak analyst
5 IRNA: Chinese envoy urges UNSC to support IAEA in solving Iran's nuc
6 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomats Report Little Progress on Iran
7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran's Nukes Concern Some Arab Countries
8 Guardian Unlimited: White House Questions Iran's OK on Talks
9 Platts: Nuclear talks with Iran 'will be led by EU Three' - Bush
10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Deadlocked UNSC put off Iran meeting 
11 AFP: Major powers fail to break impasse over Iran 
12 AFP: US rules nuclear issue out of Iran-Iraq talks
13 IRNA: US focusing on diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear issue 
14 IRNA: Official warns of any hesitation in peaceful nuclear path
15 US: [NYTr] The nuclear madness of George Bush
16 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Pulls Out the Stops to Save Ratings
17 US: reviewjournal.com: NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: No 
18 US: SF Chronicle: Bush continues to deal in denial
19 US: FCW: "Bush budget seeks cuts in EPA library network" 
20 AFP: India a 'singularly important' foreign priority - US 
21 [NukeNet] Bush Pushes For India Nuke Deal, Russia Says NPT
22 [Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Russian nuclear forces, 2006 | 
23 Xinhua: Bush urges Congress to approve nuclear deal with India   
24 Xinhua: S. Africa not supporting proposed nuclear rules   
25 AFP: Japanese FM voices concern on India-US nuclear deal 
26 UPI: U.K. terror cell 'sought nuclear weapon'
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
27 US: [pirgenergy] News from NJ Budget
28 US: [NukeNet] Revolving Door Of Nuclear Power-
29 US: Las Vegas SUN: State Dept. Official Pushes Nuclear Deal 
30 Guardian Unlimited: Fire Breaks Out at Japanese Nuclear Plant
31 US: AP Wire: NRC team to pobe security concerns at N.C. nuclear plan
32 Bellona: Norsk Hydro could contribute to longer life-time of Kola NP
33 BBC: Blaze at Japanese nuclear plant
34 US: Platts: Exelon's Clinton down today after yesterday's scram
35 Platts: UK nuke industry must answer basic questions to have future 
36 Platts: South Africa mulls building conventional nuclear plant
37 US: VG: NRC accepts VY license application; hearing request period i
38 US: NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC); Notice of 
39 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Vogtle Nucle
40 AFP: Germany still needs nuclear power: economy minister
41 AFP: Two hospitalized in fire at Japanese nuclear facility
42 edie news centre: Improve safety guarantees, nuclear industry told
43 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Assessment for Millstone Nuclear Plant 
44 US: RPI: Student Conference To Explore the Future of Nuclear Power
45 US: NRC: NRC Names J. Sam Armijo to the Advisory Committee on Reacto
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
46 thebulletin.org: Terrorism: A shifting landscape | 
47 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Bomb-grade bazaar | 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
48 Las Vegas SUN: No Radiation From Japan Nuclear Waste Fire 
49 US: GSPI: Proposal to drill near nuclear blast site concerns landown
50 US: Deseret News: New nuclear threat for Utah? 
51 US: Las Vegas SUN: No plans for full-scale nuclear testing, official
52 US: Hawk Eye: Funding fallout Congress should make sure nuclear-plan
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
53 US: [NukeNet] High Levels of Radioactive Material in Water, Pro
54 US: Guardian Unlimited: High Levels of Radioactive Material in Water
55 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast health survey extended
56 Mississauga News: City Hall hosts nuclear waste talk 
57 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada files new federal lawsuit in Yucca Mountain fi
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
58 Knox News: Munger: Court of national security not easy place for a h
59 DOE: DOE Initiates Environmental Impact Statement for Global Nuclear
60 Hanford News: Construction boon to Tri-Cities
61 Hanford News: Public sounds off on study
62 DOE: Advance Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact 
63 Times-News Online: Federal, state agencies discuss INL cleanup effor
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 IRNA: US wants to cool down Israel through talks with Iran - Pak analyst - 

Islamabad, March 22, IRNA                                                                                                                

Pakistan-Iran 

A noted defence analyst in Pakistan on Wednesday welcomed Iran's
and the US' readiness for talks over the Iraq situation.

 Lieutenant General (Ret'd) and ex-chief of Inter-Services
Intelligence (ISI) Hameed Gul hailed the US' and Iran's decision
to hold parleys on Iraq, saying the American nod for talks was
aimed at cooling down Israel.

 He maintained during an interview with IRNA that the Zionist
regime appeared bent on resorting to military action against the
Islamic Republic but that the US was opposed to any such extreme
measure keeping in view its precarious position in Afghanistan
and Iraq.

 "In case Israel mounts military operation against Iran there is
likelihood of eruption of World War III as oil supplies across
the world will be disrupted," he contended.

 Iran has outrightly rejected US allegations of its involvement
in the instability in Iraq and has offered negotiations, to
which the US only recently agreed.

 The analyst, replying to a question, said that he believed
Iran's spiritual leadership was also in favor of dialogue to
resolve the nuclear issue.

 Similarly, he argued that countries such as China and Russia
also favored further talks on the issue as against the US line
which did not favor talks.

 He welcomed Iraqi leader Ayatollah Ali Sistani's advice to the
nation to maintain calm and unity after the attacks on the holy
shrines in Samarra.

 Likewise, the analyst appreciated the call of another leader,
Moqtada Sadar, for maintaining sobriety after the attacks that
triggered anger across the Islamic world.

 Regarding the Iran nuclear issue, he said that China and Russia
wanted to defuse the standoff and wanted a negotiated settlement
of the same.

 Referring to the issue, he said that despite the fact that
India had exploded nuclear devices, the US signed a significant
nuclear agreement with New Delhi allowing it to purchase more
nuclear reactors but has vehemently opposed Iran's right to
pursue peaceful nuclear technology.

 "We must not forget that Iran has not exploded a nuclear
device, but biased US policy may force it to come out of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said.

*****************************************************************
 2 IRNA: Asefi refutes US claims on al-Qaeda presence in Iran

Tehran, March 22, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran-US-Asefi 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi on Wednesday ruled
out "unfounded and false" claims of the US that al-Qaeda members
were present in Iran.

 "Dissemination of such reports aim to cover up failure of the
occupying forces in guaranteeing security of Iraq," said Asefi.

 He said Iran's stances against al-Qaeda terrorist group is
completely clear and Americans know quite well that "we have
thus far acted on our international responsibilities regarding
campaign against terrorism and uprooting the international
intricacy which has its roots in the inequality and injustice
caused by global hegemony." "How can the US government, which
itself has no commitment to the international regulations, speak
of others' international
 responsibilities?" asked Asefi.

 Undoubtedly, he said, under the current circumstances when
security conditions in Iraq are worsening day by day and people
in the country, as the biggest victim, are sustaining casualties
and financial damage more than before, presence of the US
occupiers will itself pave the ground for terrorist activities
of such groups as al-Qaeda.

 He added that Americans, which have no response for their
public opinion, are laying blame on others and raising such
subjects to cover up their weakness and failure.

*****************************************************************
 3 IRNA: UNSC member states confer on Iran's nuclear dossier 

New York, March 22, IRNA                                                                                                                 

Iran-UNSC-Nuclear 

Representatives of 15 United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
members held the third meeting on Iran's nuclear dossier behind
closed doors at 15:30 hours local time (24:00 hours Tehran time
on Tuesday) to draw up the draft statement against the country's
nuclear program for peaceful purposes.

 Meetings of the five permanent UNSC member states on the draft
statement against Iran started on March 6, 2006 and have
continued without reaching any result.

 The latest session was held at the United Nations' British
Representative Office on Monday, where the senior officials
attending it failed to reach an agreement.

 The representatives of 14 UNSC member states have almost
realized that the US is attempting to use Iran's peaceful
nuclear program as a tool to exert pressure upon Tehran by
bringing up ambiguities.

 Besides, Washington's intention to misuse UNSC as a political
tool has encountered the reaction and resistance of the
independent countries of the world.

 US President George W. Bush on Monday said that he and his
neo-conservative cabinet are mainly concerned about the attacks
of Iranian officials on Israel.

 He pointed to Israel as the US strategic ally and said that
Washington will support Israel with its full military force.

 The Bush administration is highly influenced by the community
of the American Jews dubbed "Aipek", which almost by relying
upon its financial means plays a major role in the US foreign
policy decision making process.

 The US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and Vice
President Dick Cheney, as two officials playing a major part in
advancing Washington's policies against Iran, have in practice
gained their authority from this US-based Zionist community.

 At present, Bolton is clearly in charge of enforcing Israel's
policies against Iran in the United Nations.

*****************************************************************
 4 IRNA: US would not go for war against Iran: Pak analyst

Islamabad, March 22, IRNA                                                                                                                

Pakistan-Analyst-Comment 

The United States had the capability but lacked courage to go
for a military action against Iran, a leading defence analyst in
Pakistan said on Wednesday.

 In an interview with IRNA here ex-Chief of Army Staff and top
defence analyst General (Retd) Mirza Aslam Beg said that the US
decision to take the issue of Iran's nuclear programme to the
United Nations Security Council reflected its helplessness and
inability to resort to any extreme measure on the matter.

 Substantiating his viewpoint, the analyst said that the US had
been forced to adopt a different policy vis-z-vis Iran, contrary
to its military invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq.

 "The US could have done so about the Iran issue, but it fully
knew its consequences. Besides other things, Americans knew the
strength of Iranian nation, their unity and courage to face any
eventuality," he contended.

 The US, he maintained, must understand the fact that the world
community was no more willing to condone its policy based on
threats, pressures and illogical ground.

 "The clear example is the China and Russia model: they defied
the US and have been engaged in efforts to resolve the issue
through talks, he said.

 The analyst believed that China and Russia had in a way,
accepted the Iran's position on peaceful use of nuclear
technology that was why they were quite active for its
settlement through negotiations, and might not vote for any
US-moved resolution.

 To a question, he said that it was not likely for the US to
succeed in getting through a resolution from the United Nations
Security Council, clamping curbs on the Islamic republic, as
besides China and Russia, some European nations were also
opposed to America's plan on the issue.

 "The US will have to tread carefully keeping in mind these
factors. The Americans simply can't afford more embarrassment,"
he contended.

 About the US decision to hold parleys with Iran, he said
that,"it was the best way to find out what was a fact and I
guess Iran's position is clear on allegations of its involvement
in Iraq".

 The analyst said that on this particular issue, Iran would
succeed in convincing Americans about its indifference to Iraq
developments.

 "To my mind, Iran will not object to US proposal for deployment
of UN observers on Iran-Iraq border, in case, US keeps on
leveling charges," he added.

 However, he was quick to add that by sealing the borders or
deployment of UN observers, the inherent love and closeness
between the peoples of Iran and Iraq could not be done away with.

 The general lauded the Iranians principled stand and resilience
in view of the US and its allies' pressure and hoped they would
prove their stance was correct on both nuclear issue and Iraq
situation.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 5 IRNA: Chinese envoy urges UNSC to support IAEA in solving Iran's nuclear case - 

March 22, IRNA                                                                                                                 

-- 
China's Ambassador to the United Nations Wang Guangya said that
the UN Security Council should support the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) in solving Iran's nuclear issue.

 According to an interview with the Chinese news agency, Xinhua,
which was released on Wednesday, he added that no progress has
been made in the talks of UNSC member states on Iran's nuclear
issue.

 "China believes that the UN Security Council is bound to
protect the IAEA authority. However, the member states do not
agree on the way the UNSC should play its role.

 Guangya said, "The UN Security Council should be notified that
it should safeguard the authority of the UN nuclear watchdog
rather than attempting to replace it.

 "China prefers the issue to be settled through diplomacy,
instead of imposing sanctions or exerting pressures on Iran."
Meanwhile, the Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, in an
interview this week, stressed that China believes dialogue would
be a more efficient diplomacy than sanction in solving the
nuclear problem of Iran.

 The Chinese diplomat said that under the present sensitive
regional situation, to which Iran is also subject, the UNSC
should take into view all precautionary measures in dealing with
the nuclear issue.

 Guangya noted that the UNSC decision on the matter should be
taken in line with protection of the regional peace and
stability, adding that it should also help advance diplomatic
talks.

*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomats Report Little Progress on Iran
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday March 23, 2006 12:46 AM

AP Photo NYDK104 

By NICK WADHAMS 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The five veto-wielding members of the U.N.
Security Council reported little progress Wednesday after new
talks meant to craft a unified message urging Iran to come clean
about its suspect nuclear program. 

The gap between Britain, France and the United States on the one
side, and China and Russia on the other, on the stance to take
toward Iran has shown little sign of closing in the nearly two
weeks that council members have debated the issue. 

Nonetheless, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and
several diplomats in New York expressed their belief that the
council would come to a deal eventually. 

``We will come up with a vehicle, I am quite certain of that,''
Rice said during a trip to the Bahamas. ``We have work still to
do. This is the natural course of diplomacy. If it takes a
little longer, I'm not really concerned about that.'' 

The United States and its allies in Europe had hoped that a
strong council statement would help pressure Iran to comply with
demands by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic
Energy Agency, to stop enriching uranium. The IAEA's 35-nation
board had asked for Security Council involvement earlier this
year after Iran moved to develop full-blown enrichment
capabilities. 

Yet the West has so far been unable to persuade China and Russia
to sign onto a statement reiterating demands by the IAEA that
Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the process that can be used to
generate nuclear power or make nuclear weapons. 

Diplomats said the Russians and Chinese have not budged from
their demand that the IAEA retain the main role in cajoling Iran
on uranium enrichment. They have raised concerns that pushing
Iran too hard could lead to its withdrawal from the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty and expulsion of IAEA inspectors. 

After their talks Wednesday, the five veto-wielding members of
the council said more talks were needed. They still had no plans
to call a meeting of the full, 15-nation council to consider a
new text for a council statement. 

``We will meet from time to time but we didn't discuss any
proposals to arrange the meeting of the whole membership,''
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said. ``We still need
some more time to consult.'' 

In a talk in Wheeling, W.Va., President Bush stressed that Iran
should never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. 

``We're dealing with this issue diplomatically by having the
Germans and the French and the British send a clear message to
the Iranians, with our strong backing, that you will not have
the capacity to make a weapon, to know how to make a weapon,''
Bush said. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran's Nukes Concern Some Arab Countries
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday March 22, 2006 7:16 PM

AP Photo VAH101 

By DIANA ELIAS 

Associated Press Writer 

KUWAIT CITY (AP) - This tiny Gulf country is increasingly
nervous - as are some of its neighbors - about Iran's
controversial nuclear program, right across the water. But
heading into a key summit, Arab leaders are divided, and
publicly squabbling, over how to defuse a crisis that has caused
the West to haul Iran before the U.N. Security Council. 

Countries close to Iran, including Kuwait and the United Arab
Emirates, have focused on safety issues, the threat of a
possible regional arms race and the possibility that a crisis
with the West could spill onto other nations. Iran's nuclear
program ``still poses a big worry,'' Sheik Abdullah bin Zayed Al
Nayyan, the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, said
this month. 

But Arab countries farther away from Iran have insisted that the
United States and Europe should not pressure Iran over its
program unless they also push for an end to Israel's nuclear
program. 

In January, the secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr
Moussa, an Egyptian, quarreled publicly with the Emirates'
foreign minister after Moussa sent a message to the Gulf
Cooperation Council summit, urging the leaders of the UAE,
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain and Qatar to focus on
Israel, not Iran. 

Moussa repeated his stance last month, saying at one Arab
meeting: ``We should avoid double standards.'' 

Israel maintains ambiguity over its nuclear program but is
widely believed to have hundreds of nuclear warheads. 

The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear
weapons. But Iran says its nuclear program aims only to generate
electricity and has insisted it has a right to carry out uranium
enrichment, a process that can develop either fuel for a reactor
or material for a nuclear weapon. 

As they head into next week's Arab League meeting in Sudan, both
Iran's program itself - and the fight over it - have many in the
Gulf nervous. 

``Accidents happen in developed countries. What would reassure
us that they won't happen in a Third World country?'' asked
Kuwaiti strategist Sami al-Faraj. 

His Kuwait Center for Strategic Studies is advising the Kuwaiti
government - as well as the secretariat-general of the Gulf
Cooperation Council - on how to prepare for any nuclear
accidents in Iran, he said. The country's first nuclear reactor,
expected to go online this year, is in Bushehr in southern Iran,
just 150 miles across the Persian Gulf from Kuwait. 

Iran is seismically unstable, and an earthquake could cause an
accident that would be more disastrous for Gulf countries than
for Iran. 

``A catastrophe that kills 200,000 people could mean wiping out
half of Bahrain,'' he noted. 

In addition, any pollution of the Gulf would shut down the six
water desalination plants on the Arab shore, he said. 

But it's not just safety issues that concern the Gulf states.
Leaders also worry about a possible regional arms race, and fear
the dispute with the West might prompt U.S. or Israeli
airstrikes against Iran - something sure to rile Shiite Muslim
communities in the largely Sunni Muslim Gulf countries. 

During a Gulf Cooperation Council summit in December, a
government-run think tank, the Emirates Center for Strategic
Studies, warned Gulf states against maintaining ``silence'' over
the nuclear issue, saying they ``will pay the price for any
escalation between Iran and the West.'' 

``Gulf nations utterly refuse any idea that Iran should own a
nuclear weapon, and they want Iran to stop uranium enrichment
... except under international control,'' said Dawood
al-Shirian, a Saudi Arabian analyst. 

And he said a nuclear-armed Iran would be a ``justification''
for foreign countries to keep their forces in the Gulf longer to
protect their oil interests. 

Washington has maintained a military presence in the area since
a U.S.-led coalition drove Iraqi troops from Kuwait in the 1991
Gulf War. Kuwait was the main launch point for the American-led
invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, and U.S.
naval and air forces have bases in Bahrain and Qatar. 

Al-Shirian said any military confrontation between Iran and the
West would trigger a response in Iraq that could lead to
Shiite-Sunni sectarian tensions across the region. 

Iran and southern Iraq embrace the Shiite sect of Islam, while
Gulf countries that are ruled by Sunni families have Shiite
minorities. 

In January, Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shiite cleric in Iraq,
said his militia would defend Iran if that country were ever
attacked, an apparent message to the West that Tehran has allies
who could make things difficult for U.S. forces in the region. 

``They are our neighbors,'' one former Kuwaiti lawmaker, Ahmed
al-Rubei, said recently of Iran. ``Their safety is our safety.'' 

--- 

Associated Press reporter Salah Nasrawi contributed to this
report from Cairo, Egypt. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: White House Questions Iran's OK on Talks
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday March 22, 2006 8:31 PM

AP Photo VAH102 

By BARRY SCHWEID 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration questioned on
Wednesday the motives of Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei in approving U.S.-proposed talks on Iraq, but did not
shut the door entirely. 

``It is a matter of curious timing,'' State Department spokesman
Sean McCormack said, suggesting Iran was trying to deflect
international pressure from its nuclear programs now under
criticial discussion at the United Nations. 

While a ``channel'' for communication between the United States
and Iran remains open, he said, no meetings have been scheduled. 

Khamenei's statement on Tuesday was the first confirmation that
he supports having talks. He also warned the United States must
not try to ``bully'' Iran. 

President Bush months ago initiated a diplomatic effort to hold
talks with Iran over its activities in Iraq. The administration
considers Iran meddlesome and accuses it of supporting insurgent
militia with weapons. 

When Iran last week signaled its willingess to talk, however,
Bush's national security adviser, Steven J. Hadley, dismissed
the overture as a play designed to divert pressure and attention
from nuclear programs the United States and its European allies
charge are designed to develop nuclear weapons. 

In similar reaction on Wednesday, McCormack said: ``I find it
very interesting that the Iranian regime has chosen this
particular time to seek to communicate with the United States
government through this channel of communication, where this
channel of communication has been open for some time.'' 

The spokesman went on: ``We think it has more to do with Iran's
desire to decrease the pressure on the regime and to divert
attention from the ongoing discussions about the topic of Iran's
nuclear program that we're watching unfold up in New York. 

``We think it has more to do with that and less to do with an
actual desire to communicate with the United States government
on issues concerning Iraq.'' 

      Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 9 Platts: Nuclear talks with Iran 'will be led by EU Three' - Bush
 
New York (Platts)--21Mar2006
 
Any negotiations with Iran over the status of the country's 
nuclear development program "will be led by the EU Three," US 
President George W. Bush said Tuesday in a televised press 
briefing.

     Asked at the hastily arranged press conference in Washington 
about the pending talks between the US and Iran over the 
continued instability in Iraq, Bush noted that several months ago 
he gave US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad "permission to 
explain to the Iranians what we didn't like about their 
involvement in Iraq. I thought it was important for them to hear 
first hand..."

     But Bush denied that there were any plans to have those 
talks include the ongoing standoff with Iran over that country's 
nuclear development program.

     "Our negotiations with Iran on the nuclear weapons will be 
led by the EU Three," Bush said in a reference to negotiations 
that have been led by the UK, France and Germany. "That's 
important because the Iranians must hear there is a unified voice 
that says that they shall not have the capacity to make a nuclear 
weapon or the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon, for the 
sake of the security of the world.... It's important for our 
citizens to understand that we have to deal with that issue 
diplomatically now. And the reason why is because if the Iranians 
were to have a nuclear weapon they could blackmail the world..."

     In addition to the European negotiators, both Russia and 
China are part of efforts to get Tehran to halt its nuclear 
development program.

     Separately, Bush was asked whether he agreed with the recent 
assessment of former Iraqi interim president Iyad Alawi that Iraq 
is already involved in a civil war.

     "I do not," Bush said. "There are other voices coming out of 
Iraq, other than Mr. Alawi.... We all recognize that there is a 
violence, that there is sectarian violence. But the way I look at 
the situation is that the Iraqis took a look and decided not to 
go to civil war..." For more information, take a trial to Platts 
Nucleonics Week at
 
                                                                  
                                              Terms & Conditions 
Copyright � 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Deadlocked UNSC put off Iran meeting 

2006/03/22   

  
United Nations, March 22 - A deadlocked UN Security Council on
Tuesday put off a scheduled meeting after the council members
failed to reach an agreement on a Franco-British statement on
the Iranian nuclear case, diplomats said. 

Britain's UN envoy Emyr Jones Parry told reporters that his
country has asked the consultations be postponed in order that
informal consultations continue. 

He said, however, that he and his French counterpart, Jean-Marc
de La Sabliere, felt there was no point in amending their draft
if an agreement was not in sight. 

Earlier a western diplomat who requested anonymity said the
formal council meeting was postponed to take into account
Russian objections to the Franco-British draft. 

He added that no new date has been set for a formal meeting.   

  
  Copyright 2004, 
All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
News Network 
*****************************************************************
 11 AFP: Major powers fail to break impasse over Iran 

 Wed Mar 22, 2:50 PM ET 		 	 

NEW YORK (AFP) - Envoys of the five veto-wielding members of the
UN Security held informal contacts but failed to break an
impasse over a draft statement urging Iran" /> Iranto suspend
uranium enrichment. 

 US ambassador John Bolton hosted the gathering at his country's
UN mission which was attended by his counterparts from Britain,
China, France and Russia. 

"No agreement," Russian Ambassador Andrei Denisov told reporters
after the 90-minute session which he described as
"constructive". 

"We truly tried to keep unity of our small group ... We still
need time to consult," he added. 

"The consultations continue," Bolton said. 

After two weeks of talks, the 15-member Security Council is
unable to agree on a Franco-British statement that aims to
reinforce demands by the International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) that Iran halt
activities such as uranium enrichment which could aid weapons
development. 

Tuesday the council postponed a scheduled formal meeting to
allow more time to narrow differences the text. No new date has
yet been set. 

Diplomats said the talks are bogged down over Russian and
Chinese objections to any hint of punitive measures in the
statement. 

On a visit to Beijing, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
reiterated Moscow's opposition to issuing a nuclear "ultimatum"
that involves sanctions. 

"This draft includes formulae that will practically prepare the
ground for introducing sanctions against Iran, so it is unlikely
that we will be able to support this draft as it is," he said of
the Franco-British text. 

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza
Ricehowever voiced confidence Washington and its allies would
reach agreement on a text to pressure Iran to give up its
suspected nuclear weapons ambitions, even if it takes longer
than previously thought. 

She made her comments following a meeting of Caribbean foreign
ministers in the Bahamas, as the Security Council struggled to
hammer out a response to concerns that Tehran was using its
civilian nuclear program to covertly seek a weapons capability. 

"We will come up with a vehicle (for addressing the Iranians), I
am quite certain of it," the chief US diplomat told a news
conference. "If it takes a little longer, I'm really not
concerned about that." 

Washington and its European allies have been pressing Tehran to
suspend its uranium enrichment activities and return to
negotiations aimed at weaning them from suspected nuclear
ambitions with economic and other incentives. 

Iran denies claims that it is seeking nuclear weapons and
insists that as a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, it has a right to conduct uranium enrichment. 
 							 				 					 					 					 					 					 					 					 					
Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: US rules nuclear issue out of Iran-Iraq talks

 Wed Mar 22, 8:19 AM ET                          

BRUSSELS (AFP) - The United States will not discuss Iran" /> 's
nuclear ambitions in future talks with the Islamic Republic
about the conflict in Iraq" /> , a senior US diplomat said. 

Washington has authorised its ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay
Khalilzad, to reach out for Iranian help to stabilise the
embattled country and Tehran has since said it would be willing
to discuss the problem. 

"The discussions that we are prepared to conduct with
authorities from Iran and our ambassador Khalilzad from Baghdad
are focused on Iraq, that's the only purpose of those," said
Gregory Schulte, US ambassador to the UN nuclear watchdog. 

"We have no intention to open direct negotiations with Tehran on
the nuclear issue," he told reporters in Brussels. "We support
the European Union" /> in their efforts to conduct
negotiations." 

Washington believes that Tehran is trying to develop nuclear
weapons under the cover of a civilian atomic energy programme,
and has been the driving force behind moves to refer Iran to the
UN Security Council. 

The European Union, in particular Britain, France and Germany,
has led relatively unfruitful diplomatic efforts to persuade
Tehran to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy
Agency" /> (IAEA) in its investigation of Tehran's long-hidden
nuclear programme. 

Brussels has offered trade and political incentives in exchange
for the Islamic Republic making commitments to renounce
sensitive nuclear activities including uranium enrichment. 

But as those efforts stalled, speculation has grown that the
United States would become more belligerent or try to resolve
the issue behind the scenes. 

"We would like to see the authorities in Tehran negotiate
seriously rather than continuing to stall for time and moving
ahead aggressively with their enrichment programme," Schulte
said. 

He said that the United States was committed to the diplomatic
path and that it wanted the Security Council now to reinforce
the authority of the IAEA over Iran "to make things required,
that were maybe right now voluntary." 

He also said he hoped the world body would make it clear to Iran
that it was "running the risk of sanctions". 

Russia in particular but also China, who wield vetoes as members
of the five-state permanent council, are opposed to issuing any
ultimatums. However Schulte was optimistic a compromise
statement would be agreed in New York. 

"Russia and China have clearly come to the conclusion, as many
other countries have, that this is an issue that needs to be on
the Security Council's agenda," the diplomat said. 

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 13 IRNA: US focusing on diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear issue 

, March 22, IRNA                                                                                                                 

Facing strong opposition from the international community to the
use of force to resolve Iran's nuclear issue, the US appears to
be more supportive of a diplomatic solution.

 "Our goal is a diplomatic solution. We are looking to the
Security Council to reinforce the work undertaken in Vienna to
achieve a diplomatic solution," US ambassador to the
International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Gregory Schulte,
told a press conference in Brussels Wednesday.

 "We have laid out in Vienna what our expectations are to have a
diplomatic solution. One of those is for Iran to cooperate fully
with the IAEA and another one is for Iran to suspend its uranium
enrichment programme," said Schulte who is visiting Brussels for
talks with EU officials.

 Commenting on the difficulties among the five permanent members
of the UN Security Council to agree on a common position on
Iran, Schulte said he anticipates that there will be a statement
coming from the Security Council in the days ahead.

 "We hope that statement will reinforce the work that we have
been doing at the IAEA," said the US ambassador.

 He said Washington's decision to hold talks with Iran is
focused on Iraq.

 "We have no intentions of opening direct negotiations with
Tehran on the nuclear issue. We support the European Union to
conduct negotiations, " he added.

 Earlier, speaking at a policy briefing on "Iran's nuclear
programme, a transatlantic assessment," the US ambassador
stressed that "our goal together with the European Union is to
achieve a diplomatic solution."
 He, however; added that US President George Bush has not ruled
out any options to resolve the nuclear issue.

 The policy briefing was organized by a Brussels-based think
tank 'The European Policy Centre'.

*****************************************************************
 14 IRNA: Official warns of any hesitation in peaceful nuclear path

March 22, IRNA                                                                                                                 

-- 
The least hesitation on the path to peaceful nuclear activities
would spoil whatever gained thus far, said an Iranian official
here on Wednesday.

 "We have been successful on the way we have thus far trodden
because in scientific ways the more you go forward the more
potential surfaces," said Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic
Affairs Ali-Reza Sheikh Attar in an interview with IRNA here on
Wednesday.

 Sheikh Attar touched on the statements made by the Supreme
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Khamenei on peaceful
nuclear activities and said the guidelines revolved around two
axes:
 The first being the technical and scientific capabilities of
the people and the youth and the second being the resistance to
gain rights.

 "If we employ the same strategy we have used for the past few
years to gain access to peaceful nuclear energy, i.e.
self-reliance and better use of talents and unconditional
non-reliance on external resources, we would go forward firmer,"
he added.

 The official went on to say, "We are still far from final stage
of nuclear technology and we should move with more self-reliance
on the way."
 He said that despite all the pressures, Iran has been able over
the past two or three years to confront through diplomacy but
from now onward the management task in the nuclear field would
be with people rather than diplomats.

 People should have stronger presence in the scene of defense of
nuclear achievements, said Sheikh Attar, adding that general
diplomacy and use of media would be of high significance in the
field.

 Today, the media are mostly used for publicity against Iran and
the world has launched the propaganda that Iran is trying to
attain nuclear weapons, he said.

 He added that through stronger public presence and professional
use of general diplomacy, emphasis should be made to give mass
coverage to public presence and resistance on absolute right of
the Iranian nation.

 The official said the reports should not be disseminated only
internally, rather, the media should professionally inform the
world ublic opinion of the intention and logic behind it.

*****************************************************************
 15 [NYTr] The nuclear madness of George Bush
 
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:31:12 -0600 (CST)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Green Left Weekly, March 22, 2006.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/661/661p12.htm

The nuclear madness of George Bush

by Jon Lamb

On February 6, US President George Bush confirmed his intention to
commit the US to a program of reprocessing nuclear fuel. Touted as a
key measure in the ''Advanced Energy Initiative'`, outlined in Bush's
January State of the Union speech, the plutonium extracted from spent
fuel is allegedly to be used as a fuel source for a new generation of
nuclear power plants across the US and elsewhere.

The proposal will overturn a 29-year ban in the US on reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium, implemented in 1977 by
President Jimmy Carter as a gesture of the US's commitment to reduce
nuclear weapons proliferation. The ban was also motivated by the
failure of the West Valley reprocessing facility in New York, which
was closed down in 1972 after six years of operation and only
processing a fraction of the nuclear waste sent there. The clean-up of
this site continues, at a cost in excess of US$5 billion.

Bush has requested that Congress approve $250 million in the 2007
budget as the first instalment on a program to develop the technology
and facilities for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Through the
establishment of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), Bush
claims that the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation will be
significantly reduced and that the program will facilitate "the
expansion of civilian nuclear power in the United States and encourage
civilian nuclear power in foreign countries to evolve in a more
proliferation-resistant manner".

Despite the massive environmental dangers associated with reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel, and the potential for this program to
significantly expand Washington's capabilities for waging nuclear
warfare, Bush said in his weekly radio broadcast on February 18: "As
America and other nations build more nuclear power plants, we must
work together to address two challenges: We must dispose of nuclear
waste safely, and we must keep nuclear technology and material out of
the hands of terrorist networks and terrorist states."

Bush explained that the US plans to begin the construction of new
reactors for power generation by the end of the decade. US
undersecretary of state for arms control and international security
Robert Joseph was reported in the Pakistan Daily Times on February 18
as stating that the GNEP aims to "prevent future Iran", a reference to
the hyped-up claims of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons production
capabilities.

According to the US Department of Energy (DOE) GNEP website, the
process will go something like this: the US, along with advanced
nuclear countries such as Russia and Japan ("fuel supplier nations"),
will enrich uranium and provide it to developing countries ("user
nations"), who will commit to not develop their own enrichment
programs. The supplier nations will also provide technology in the
form of new generation reactors or small-scale reactors.

The spent fuel will be returned by the user nation for reprocessing,
where the plutonium will be extracted and used in fuel for (the yet to
be developed) advanced burner reactors and waste will be stored in
waste depositories in the supplier nations. The DOE has already set
aside 17.4 tonnes of highly enriched uranium to establish the "fuel
bank" for the GNEP.

Windfall for nukes industry

In addition to the GNEP funding, Bush has requested that $347 million
be made available for nuclear power research and development, an
increase of 55% on the 2006 budget. The spending boom earmarked for
nuclear technology will give a leg-up to the ailing nuclear power
industry in the US, where 103 reactors currently generate 20% of
electricity. Bush wants the US to emulate France, where nuclear
reactors generate 78% of electricity needs.

"We didn't think nuclear was going to come this hard and fast", Andrew
White, chief executive of General Electric Nuclear, stated in an
article in the Qatar-based Gulf Times on February 18. According to
White, GE Nuclear, a division of the GE Energy unit, is expected to
double or treble its income within the next decade.

White believes that as many as 200 reactors will be built in the US
within the next century, to replace the current reactors and meet the
expected increase in demand for electricity. The nuclear slush fund
provided by the White House has given greater certainty to GE and
other companies that build reactors.

Bush's latest pro-nuclear proclamations follow the energy bill passed
last August, which committed $2 billion and tax-break incentives to
assist energy companies develop the first six next-generation nuclear
reactors.

It is estimated that between 1948 and 1998 more than $66 billion was
spent on nuclear energy research and subsidies. The bill for the
reprocessing component of GNEP is likely to rapidly grow -- in 1996
the National Academy of Sciences estimated that the cost of
reprocessing irradiated fuel from US reactors would easily exceed $100
billion.

Next generation nukes

The reprocessing of nuclear fuel from other nations and from within
the US means that the US government will have access to (and control
over) an exceptional amount of plutonium, with the potential for use
in next generation nuclear weapons (like the "bunker-buster") that
Bush and Pentagon officials are keen to develop. Bush has requested
$27.7 million to be spent on the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.
A January 31 press release by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
notes that "reprocessing just the spent fuel rods produced by US
reactors in one year would result in some 20 metric tons of plutonium
-- enough to build over 3000 nuclear weapons".

Wherever reprocessing has taken place, it has resulted in huge amounts
of radioactive waste and major environmental degradation in and around
the facilities involved. The Sellafield plant in Britain is
responsible for converting large parts of the Irish Sea into a
biologically dead body of water. Another infamous example is the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation located in south-central Washington.
Established in the 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project for the
creation of the world's first nuclear weapons, a large quantity of
weapons-grade plutonium was produced at the site for decades.

The 1518 square kilometre site is a toxic contaminated wasteland of
immense proportion. Fifty-three million gallons of highly radioactive
and chemical waste are stored in 177 underground tanks, each the size
of a three-storey building. At least 70 of the tanks have ruptured,
leaking an estimated 1 million gallons of waste into the surrounding
soil and groundwater. The adjoining Columbia River is considered to be
the most nuclear-polluted river in the Western hemisphere.

The cost of cleaning up radioactive waste at Handford has been revised
upwards in the last five years from $4.3 billion in 2000 -- when the
contract was awarded to Bechtel (which plans to vitrify the waste into
glass logs) -- to a massive $50-$60 billion, with completion of works
by 2035.

Bush administration and DOE representatives claim that the Uranium
Extraction Plus (or Urex+) method of reprocessing will reduce the
volume of radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants. Yet this
is strongly contested by US scientists and anti-nuclear advocates.
According to the UCS, "reprocessing does not reduce the need for
storage and disposal of radioactive waste, and a geological repository
would still be required. Plutonium constitutes only about one percent
of the spent fuel from US reactors. After reprocessing, the remaining
material will be in several different waste forms, and the total
volume of nuclear waste will have been increased by a factor of twenty
or more, including low-level waste and plutonium contaminated waste."

Furthermore, "to make a significant reduction in the amount of
high-level nuclear waste that would require disposal, the used fuel
would need to be reprocessed and reused many times with an extremely
high degree of efficiency -- which is very expensive and would take
years. For example, in 1999, the Department of Energy estimated it
would cost $279 billion over a 118-year period to fully implement a
reprocessing and recycling program for the entire inventory of US
spent fuel."

The UCS also points out that previous research by DOE scientists Dr E.
D. Collins and Dr Bruce Godwin contradict the claim that the Urex+
method is "proliferation resistant". Collin's research for the DOE's
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative highlights that the plutonium mixture
produced by a process like Urex+ generates a much lower dosage rate of
radiation than the conventional Purex method used elsewhere, making it
easier to handle and thus easier to steal.

Godwin explained in a workshop in 1999 on nuclear fuel that
"Examination of various cycles and the opinions of weapons-design
experts lead to the conclusion that there is no 'proliferation-proof'
nuclear power cycle". According to UCS senior scientist Dr Edwin
Lyman, the research of Collins and Godwin "clearly demonstrates that
the administration's new reprocessing program will pose a serious risk
that terrorists could acquire the material needed to make a nuclear
weapon from a US facility".

A mountain of waste

The DOE plans to consolidate all of the stockpiled nuclear waste in
the Yucca Mountain waste disposal site located in Nevada. With the
prospect of a large number of new nuclear reactors being built in the
US in the next 90 years, there will be even more pressure to dispose
of the nuclear waste from power plants -- presently around 55,000
tonnes of waste and quickly approaching the legally allowable limit
for Yucca Mountain (which at the earliest will be operational in
2015).

Philip Finck, the deputy associate laboratory director for Argonne
National Laboratory, told a Congressional hearing last year that he
expected the increase in the number of nuclear power plants would mean
that the "US will need up to nine Yucca Mountain-type repositories by
the end of this century".

Environmental activists and Nevada state officials strongly oppose the
Yucca Mountain facility and are worried that the GNEP and reprocessing
plan for spent fuel will further increase the risks of accidents and
radioactive pollution. Bob Loux, who heads up the Nevada Commission on
Nuclear Projects also believes that "the only reason that they're
proposing reprocessing is Yucca Mountain is failing".

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 16 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Pulls Out the Stops to Save Ratings
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday March 22, 2006 11:01 PM

AP Photo WVCD104 

By JENNIFER LOVEN 

Associated Press Writer 

WHEELING, W.Va. (AP) - Whether he's before a friendly West
Virginia audience, a Cleveland club proud of its interrogation
skills or a White House news conference, President Bush is
drawing on his plainspoken manner in freewheeling venues to
defend his Iraq strategy. 

Alternately serious and joking, charming and disarming in this
war anniversary week, Bush is trying to counter election-year
critics and reverse an approval ratings slide. 

In Wheeling on Wednesday, the fifth day in a row Bush devoted
his remarks to Iraq, the president bantered with the locals, his
shoulders bouncing up and down as they do when he's pleased with
his own jokes. Then he brought down the house with his trademark
I-won't-back-down pledge. 

``Let me put it to you this way: If I didn't think we'd succeed,
I'd pull our troops out,'' Bush said. More than 2,000 supporters
- including many active-duty military and their families - leapt
from their seats and filled the gilded Capitol Music Hall with
wild applause. 

``I cannot look mothers and dads in the eye, I can't ask this
good Marine to go into harm's way if I didn't believe, one,
we're going to succeed, and, two, it's necessary for the
security of the United States,'' Bush said. 

Beginning with a speech last Monday in Washington. and with more
planned to come, the president wants to convince Americans not
only that there is reason for optimism about Iraq's future but
that the situation now is better than the daily reports of
strife make it appear. 

With national polls showing he has a tough hill to climb - and
the upcoming midterm congressional elections making Republicans
nervous - Bush laces his remarks with nods to both Americans'
worries and the grim realities on the ground in Iraq. The
insurgency remains strong, sectarian violence is spiraling and
talks to form a unity government seem stalemated. 

The president said at least a half-dozen times here that he
understands the concern about Iraq. 

``There was some awful violence. Some reprisals taking place.
And I can understand people saying, `Man, it's all going to -
you know, it's not working out,''' he said. 

But, Bush added, standing in front of three large
blue-and-yellow ``Plan for Victory'' posters: ``The way I like
to put it is, they looked into the abyss as to whether or not
they want a civil war or not and chose not to. That's not to say
we don't have more work to do, and we do.'' 

The crowd in Wheeling needed little convincing. Another standing
ovation was prompted by a woman who asked Bush what could be
done to keep the press from ignoring progress in Iraq. 

``Our major media don't want to portray the good,'' she said.
``If the American people could see it, there would never be
another negative word about this conflict.'' 

Bush declined the opportunity to tell the media what to publish. 

``You're asking me to say something in front of all the cameras
here. Help over there, will you?'' he joshed. ``Just got to keep
talking. Word of mouth.'' 

In Cleveland on Monday, Bush did his talking at the City Club.
The questions got tough at the forum known for taking on world
leaders, ranging from Iraq to his warrantless wiretapping
program to a new nuclear deal with India. But the exchanges
allowed Bush to make his case for the war, and earned him a few
laughs and several rounds of enthusiastic applause along the
way. 

``Anybody work here in this town?'' Bush joked at one point as
the Cleveland questioning went on in an appearance that
eventually went over 90 minutes. 

On Tuesday, Bush called a news conference with the Washington
media. But he rejected the formal East Room in favor of going
toe-to-toe with reporters in the cramped, casual White House
briefing room that better suits his style. The president
bantered with an outspoken critic, journalist Helen Thomas,
saying he ``semi-regretted'' calling on her, and he teasingly
accused other reporters of falling asleep during his speeches. 

The sessions follow a December blitz by Bush that succeeded in
arresting an earlier fall in his approval ratings. This time,
White House advisers hope the speaking events, even when they
draw the kind of difficult questions that have occasionally come
Bush's way this week, will showcase a president comfortable with
his message, his strategy and his facts. 

``It's one of the best chances he has to be effective, to change
away from the Pollyanna-ish characterizations of it being all
good news,'' said Bruce Buchanan, a University of Texas
political scientist who has long observed Bush. 

However, Wayne Fields, a specialist in presidential rhetoric at
Washington University in St. Louis, said, ``The problem is that
clearly he's doing this because of the polls and that adds a
level of desperation.'' 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 17 reviewjournal.com: NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: No nukes 
is good nukes
 
  Mar. 22, 2006

U.S. official says no plans for more tests       

By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL
	
Linton F. Brooks, administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration, discusses Nevada Test Site programs Tuesday at
the administration's North Las Vegas office. 

Photo by John Gurzinski.
 	   
The resumption of full-scale nuclear weapons testing at the
Nevada Test Site is not on the horizon, the nation's nuclear
security chief said Tuesday. 

But, Linton F. Brooks, administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration, said the Bush administration intends to
retain the option of conducting full-scale tests below ground at
the test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 


"The reason this administration has been unwilling to push for
the ratification (of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) is that
we don't want to close the door," Brooks said on a visit to the
NNSA's Nevada Site Office in North Las Vegas. 

"We have absolutely no evidence that we're going to need to
test. ... We don't see any specific reason now that leads us to
believe we'll need a test. On the other hand, we don't know
everything about the future," Brooks said. 

In Brooks' view, only a major problem with the nuclear weapons
stockpile would prompt full-scale testing to resume at the
Nevada Test Site, where the program was put on hold indefinitely
in 1992, he said. 

"It's pretty unlikely that you're going to see the return to
testing," Brooks said. "And you're certainly not going to see a
return to testing for developing new weapons. ... It's very hard
to see a future in which that would be either necessary or wise
or politically possible." 

From 1951 through 1992, government scientists conducted 928
full-scale nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site, including 100
above ground. 

As for the possibility of developing new weapons using
science-based techniques, such as laser fusion and subcritical
experiments that detonate small amounts of nuclear materials,
and analyzing the data with supercomputers, Brooks said: "Well,
we don't know yet because we don't have any requirements from
the Department of Defense to development new weapons. 

"Even if we did, there's great concern by many in Congress about
new weapons," he said. "I think that at the moment our focus is
much more on making sure that we can modify" existing weapons
components. 

Brooks said by 2012, the United States will have 1,700 to 2,200
deployed nuclear weapons and "a fairly large number of
non-deployed weapons." 

"One of the reasons we keep a fairly large number of
non-deployed weapons now," he said, "is a hedge both against
geopolitics -- a new arms race with a new peer competitor -- and
as a hedge against technical problems. You keep two different
warheads for ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) so that
if one of them doesn't work you can upload the rest." 

Brooks said scientists at national laboratories within the
administration, a branch of the Department of Energy, keep a
watchful eye on foreign nuclear capabilities by working with the
U.S. intelligence community. 

"The United States, I think, pays a huge amount of attention to
Iran. I think there is widespread consensus that the Iranian
program makes no sense unless you assume that one of the things
they're after is a weapons capability." 

Brooks cautioned that he doesn't want "to overstate the problem.
There is no Iranian weapon now, I'm almost positive, and don't
think there can be one for a while. 

"But the reason the period we're at right now is so crucial is
that what Iran is doing will give them knowledge and technical
ability," he said. "Now is the time the international community
needs to deal with this problem because I do think that the
long-term prospects of an Iranian weapon are not in the interest
of U.S. security." 	   

Copyright � Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 18 SF Chronicle: Bush continues to deal in denial
 
Robert Scheer 

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

ON THE THIRD anniversary of the beginning of his Iraq
catastrophe, President Bush yet again dealt in denial, but this
time the carefully screened audience at the Cleveland City Club
wasn't buying it. 

Perhaps most on target was an elderly gentleman who cited what
he said were the three main reasons for going to war in Iraq --
WMD, Iraq's ties to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists and the
alleged purchase of nuclear material from Niger -- and then
noted dryly that all three of these rationales turned out to be
false. 

"How do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their
leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now
is correct?" he asked the president. 

How indeed? "That's a great question," began Bush by way of
dissembling. "First, just if I may correct a misperception. I
don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say -- that
there was a direct connection between Sept. 11 and Saddam
Hussein." 

Really? So when he said in his May 1, 2003, "Mission
Accomplished" speech on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham
Lincoln that "we have removed an ally of al Qaeda," he meant a
different gang with the same name as the one blamed for the
attack on the World Trade Center twin towers and Pentagon? It is
his way of finessing the firm conclusion of the bipartisan Sept.
11 commission that Hussein was an opponent of al Qaeda and never
an ally. Yet that didn't stop Bush from again on Monday
insisting that "the central front on the war on terror is Iraq." 

Meanwhile, that old "central front," wooly Afghanistan, is now
all sewed up, Bush reassures. "Twenty-five million people are
now free, and Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for the
terrorists." Apparently the president missed the director of the
U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Maples, giving
testimony to Congress a few weeks ago that Taliban resurgence
now presents "a greater threat to the Afghan central
government's expansion of authority than at any point since late
2001." 

To be sure, occupied Iraq is useful to al Qaeda and its ilk --
as a recruiting poster. In this and myriad other ways, the
United States military's continued heavy-handed presence in Iraq
strengthens the hands of extremists and demagogues who can
appeal to latent Iraqi nationalism and Muslim pride. Yet we seem
to have forgotten that terrorists don't really need Iraq as "a
safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our
nation," as Bush put it -- they are just as likely to be drawn
from countries that are nominally our allies, such as the 15
hijackers recruited under the noses of the Bush family's sheikh
friends in Saudi Arabia. 

Finally, for old times sake, Bush trotted out his now hoary
excuses for those missing Iraqi WMD he so trumped up to get us
psyched for a "pre-emptive" war three years ago, again blaming
the deception on everyone except himself. "Like you, I asked
that very same question, 'Where did we go wrong on
intelligence?' " he plaintively responded to his questioner.
"The truth of the matter is that the whole world thought that
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." 

Not so, most of the world thought it best to wait for the U.N.
inspectors, then on the ground in Iraq, to complete their work
before answering that question. Those inspectors had found no
such evidence of WMD and this president knew full well that
would likely be their final conclusion when he ordered the
pre-emptive invasion. Yet he justified it by referring to the
Sept. 11, 2001, attack warning, "We cannot wait for the final
proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a
mushroom cloud." 

On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that a treasure trove
of translations of audio tapes of top-level Iraqi meetings
involving Hussein, released at the request of U.S. Rep. Peter
Hoekstra, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee, show that Iraq destroyed its WMD program by 1992.
Those tapes were obtained soon after the 2003 invasion, yet the
Bush administration kept them secret while continuing to assert
that Iraq had an active WMD program. 

As opposed to ordinary people in this country and the world,
Bush has access to the same detailed information that the Sept.
11 commission used to conclude that the terrorist acts of Sept.
11 and others conducted by al Qaeda bore no relation to Iraq. It
is hardly an advertisement for American democracy that he has
been able to operate before the war and as recently as this week
as if the truth will never be allowed to hold him accountable --
though not in Cleveland, which is something to cheer about. 

E-mail Robert Scheer at rscheer@truthdig.com				
Page B - 9 			

The San Francisco Chronicle] 

*****************************************************************
 19 FCW: "Bush budget seeks cuts in EPA library network" 

[Federal Computer Week, March 13, 2006] 

BY Aliya Sternstein

 Published on Mar. 21, 2006                      

Proposed cuts in the fiscal 2007 budget have prompted 
Environmental Protection Agency officials to shutter the agencys 
Midwest Regional Library in anticipation of congressional 
approval of the budget.

According to an internal e-mail released by Public Employees for 
Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the EPA is preparing to 
close the Chicago library to preempt the passage of President 
Bushs proposed 80 percent funding cut to the EPA library 
network. The network provides access to tens of thousands of 
electronic and paper documents that are unavailable elsewhere. 

The agency plans to eliminate many library buildings and
reference assistants to cut $2 million from the current $2.5
million library budget, said EPA officials, who are developing a
cost-savings plan. The agency will digitize some collections and
make them available online, while other works will be available
via interlibrary loans from operational EPA libraries.

In a March 13 memo to employees, EPA Midwestern Regional
Administrator Thomas Skinner wrote, The library will close in
the near future&to allow time for an orderly relocation of our
library collection. That library services Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Established in 1971, the EPAs library program offers a wide
range of information on environmental protection and management,
basic sciences such as biology and chemistry, applied sciences
such as engineering and toxicology, and topics featured in
legislative mandates, such as hazardous waste, drinking water,
pollution prevention and toxic substances. The EPA operates a
network of 28 libraries from its Washington, D.C., headquarters
and 10 regional offices nationwide.

By putting its research collections into indefinite storage,
EPA might as well start burning books because these works are
not likely to see the light of day again, said Jeff Ruch, PEER
executive director, adding that the agency has not allocated
funds for moving collections to other libraries or digitizing
the holdings to post online. 

Although the cuts could restrict access to documents, the
presidents overall budget requests a significant increase in
the EPAs funds for research on nanotechnology, air pollution
and secure drinking water systems. Bush cited the initiatives as
part of his innovation agenda, the American Competitiveness
Initiative. Announced during his State of the Union Address, the
three-part program focuses on research and development,
education, and workforce and immigration policies.

The EPA might want to wait for Congress to act before it
shutters its libraries, Ruch said.   

FCW.COM is a product of FCW Media Group. 			

Copyright 2000-2005 101communications. See our Privacy
*****************************************************************
 20 AFP: India a 'singularly important' foreign priority - US 
 
 Wed Mar 22, 4:51 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - India is now a "singularly important" US
foreign policy priority, a senior Washington official said,
pointing to flourishing economic and political ties and this
month's landmark bilateral nuclear deal. 

"The relationship between India and the United States is
singularly important for our society and for the future of
American foreign policy," Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs Nicholas Burns told reporters. 

"We think, frankly, that one of the most important strategic
initiatives of the United States in the last few years has been
the opening to India," Burns said. 

He made his remarks as Washington dispatched two senior
officials to Vienna to sell its controversial nuclear deal with
India to the Nuclear Suppliers Group of 44 member states, which
seeks to supervise trade in potential nuclear weapons materials. 

Richard Boucher, US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia,
and Stephen Rademaker, Assistant Secretary of State for
International, Security and Nonproliferation, were due to brief
members of the group on Thursday about on Washington's plan to
provide key US nuclear technology to India, Burns said. 

He told reporters in Washington Wednesday that the United States
was hopeful about the outcome of the briefings to the group,
also known as the NSG. 

"My very strong sense is that what we're going to hear tomorrow
is a lot of countries are going to wait and see if the United
States government is able to convince the US Congress to pass
the necessary legislation to allow this deal to go forward,"
Burns said. 

"Once that happens, then I think sequentially the Nuclear
Suppliers Group will then want to take action on its own" to
endorse the deal, he said. 

"I think that there'll be a very strong tide of support in the
NSG in favor of this, but that's probably a few months away." 

The US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement, sealed on March 3 by US
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushand Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during a visit by the US leader to
New Delhi, would give energy-starved India access to long-denied
civilian nuclear technology in return for placing a majority of
its nuclear reactors under international inspection. 

The agreement, which also places 14 of India's 22 nuclear power
reactors under international safeguards, was the cornerstone of
Bush's three-day trip to India earlier this month. 

Burns hailed "the tremendous American private investment in
India -- particularly in the advanced technology sector (and)
the tremendous expansion of trade which has benefited both of
our countries," as well as "a multiplicity of private sector
ties." 

"We've also seen a real flourishing of ties between American
citizens and Indian citizens," the US diplomat said. "There are
85,000 Indians studying in the United States -- that's the
largest group of foreign students." 

"That private sector expansion has been coupled with the
emergence of a key -- now global -- partnership between the
Indian and American government, which we think is going to be
critical for for stability in Asia ... in South Asia, as well as
in the greater Middle East, as we look to the future," he said. 

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 21 [NukeNet] Bush Pushes For India Nuke Deal, Russia Says NPT
 
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:39:42 -0800

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)



    Please call your Reps: 202-224-3121 or
1-877-762-8762 re those items below, especially
the proposed USA/India nuclear fiasco in the
making. Please note the item on chemical plant
"safety" proposed by "Homeland  Help Any
Terrorists Inside Industry And Out" and the same
mentality they use re nuclear power plants.


1.   Bush Presses for India Nuclear Pact
2.   Russia Says NPT Must Be Kept Intact in Iran
Crisis
3.   Fire/Japanese N-Plant Waste
4.   Chertoff Outlines Chemical Plant Security
[Pathetic And Outrageous!]

1.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-India.html
     Bush Presses for India Nuclear Pact
   a..                E-Mail This
   b.. Printer-Friendly
   c.. Save Article



By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 22, 2006
Filed at 1:42 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush urged Congress
on Wednesday to approve a landmark plan to share
nuclear technology with India -- a deal that could
be a tough sell to lawmakers.

Bush said India has proven itself over 30 years to
be a non-proliferator.

''It's in our interest that India use nuclear
power to power their economic growth because ...
there's a global connection between demand for
fossil fuels elsewhere and price here,'' Bush said
in Wheeling, W.Va., where he gave remarks centered
on Iraq and the war on terror.

In Washington, Undersecretary of State Nicholas
Burns also urged lawmakers to approve the deal.
''India can be trusted,'' he said.

Critics, including former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga.,
are skeptical of the agreement reached March 2 by
Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of
India.

It requires Congress to exempt India from U.S.
laws that restrict trade with countries, such as
India, that have not submitted to full nuclear
inspections.

Among concerns raised by Nunn, who played a
leading role on military issues in Congress, were
that the agreement would promote a regional arms
race with China and Pakistan and make it more
difficult for the United States to win support for
sanctions against such countries as Iran and North
Korea.

Burns said ''we take his views very seriously.''
But, Burns said at a news conference, ''we're far
better off'' having India submit to supervision
under the agreement than having the country
isolated.

He added that ''India is a country that does not
proliferate.''

''We are going to make a convincing case,'' Burns
said.

Legislation to implement the plan was introduced
last week. Burns said Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice would testify in support of the
measure.

Also, two assistant secretaries of state, Richard
Boucher and Stephen Rademaker, were sent to Vienna
to promote the plan with the Nuclear Suppliers
Group, an assembly of 35 nations that export
nuclear technology.

''India is accepting international verification,''
he said. ''India is accepting international
inspection. Who can argue with that?''

He said the agreement reflects ''the emergence of
a new global partnership between India and the
United States.''

Burns said it should cause no problem with
Pakistan, traditionally a rival of India, and that
the United States maintains good, although
different, relations with Pakistan.

Pakistan on Tuesday successfully test-fired a
cruise missile that can carry a nuclear warhead
and hit targets within a 310-mile range, the army
said.

Both Pakistan and India are nuclear-capable
nations.



2.


http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-iran-russia.html
   Russia Says NPT Must Be Kept Intact in Iran
Crisis
   a..                E-Mail This
   b.. Printer-Friendly
   c.. Save Article



By REUTERS
Published: March 22, 2006
Filed at 0:36 a.m. ET

Skip to next paragraph
BEIJING (Reuters) - Efforts to resolve the
international crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions
should focus on keeping the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) intact, Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday.

His comments came as Russian President Vladimir
Putin held talks with Chinese leaders in Beijing
focused mainly on energy but also addressing
Iran's nuclear stand-off with the West.

``I think our efforts should focus on preventing
the NPT system from being destroyed,'' he told
reporters. ``We think the NPT system should be
improved. We (Russia and China) share a common
view on most international issues ... to use
multilateral cooperation to reach agreement all
parties can accept.''

The NPT is a 1970 global pact against the spread
of atomic weapons which is policed by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in
Vienna.

Russia, backed by China, has held up an agreement
on a draft statement the U.N. Security Council
could issue telling Iran to stop atomic research,
which Western powers believe is a cover for
pursuing weapons.

Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are purely
peaceful.

Both Russia and China are wary of action by the
Security Council, which can impose sanctions,
fearing threats might escalate and prompt Iran to
cut off contact with the IAEA.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said
on Tuesday China supported a Russian compromise
proposal that would allow Iran to use nuclear fuel
enriched in an internationally monitored plant on
Russian soil, easing fears that Tehran could
divert atomic material to develop weapons.





  3.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Japan-Nuclear-Plant-Fire.html

  No Radiation From Japan Nuclear Waste Fire

   a..                E-Mail This
   b.. Printer-Friendly
   c.. Save Article



By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 22, 2006
Filed at 11:15 a.m. ET

TOKYO (AP) -- A fire broke out at a nuclear power
plant's waste incinerator in western Japan on
Wednesday, but officials said no radiation leaked
into the atmosphere. Two workers were injured.

It took firefighters wearing protective suits
nearly two hours to reach the blaze because of
thick smoke, and another two hours to put out the
flames at the facility in Oi, about 235 miles west
of Tokyo, said Manabu Kobana of Kansai Electric
Power Co.

Sensors inside and around the plant showed no
signs of a radiation leak, police said. All four
pressurized water reactors at Oi were operating
normally, and workers at the plant reactors
remained at their stations during the fire. No one
was evacuated.

''We don't believe the reactors were at any time
exposed to danger,'' Fukui police official Ritsuo
Eto said.

Two workers who were inspecting the facility were
rushed to a hospital after inhaling smoke, but
they were not in critical condition and were not
exposed to radiation, fire officials said.

Resource-poor Japan is heavily dependent on its
nuclear program, but the public has been
increasingly wary of reactor safety following a
series of malfunctions and accidents.

The cause of Wednesday evening's blaze -- located
at the waste incinerating facility between the No.
3 and No. 4 reactors -- was still under
investigation. But flames seemed to have come from
an area in the facility where the ash from
incinerated trash is packed into steel barrels,
Kobana said.

The waste processed at the facility includes
employee uniforms, rags and other trash from the
plant and may contain ''minuscule'' levels of
radiation, Kobana said.

Japan's 55 nuclear reactors supply about one-third
of the country's electricity, according to the
Natural Resources and Energy Agency, though
residents are wary of the plants' safety record.

In 2004, five workers were killed when a corroded
pipe at a reactor in western Japan ruptured and
sprayed plant workers with boiling water and steam
in the country's worst-ever nuclear plant
accident. No radiation escaped from that reactor,
which has since resumed operations.

In 1999, a radiation leak at a fuel-reprocessing
plant northeast of Tokyo killed two workers and
triggered the evacuation of thousands of
residents. That accident was caused by two workers
who tried to save time by mixing excessive amounts
of uranium in buckets instead of using special
mechanized tanks.

The government has said it wants to build 11 new
plants and raise electricity output generated by
nuclear power to nearly 40 percent of the national
supply by 2010.



4.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Chemical-Plant-Security.html

  Chertoff Outlines Chemical Plant Security

   a..                E-Mail This
   b.. Printer-Friendly
   c.. Save Article



By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 22, 2006
Filed at 7:14 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration called
Tuesday for federal regulation of security at
chemical plants, but would largely let the
industry decide how stiff the protections should
be and leave inspections to private auditors.

Critics quickly labeled the proposal, as outlined
by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a
toothless fix for safeguarding chemical plants
from terrorist attacks.

Chertoff, speaking at a forum hosted by the
chemical industry, called on Congress to give his
department authority to approve or reject security
plans for an estimated 15,000 facilities
nationwide. But he said the government would not
set minimum standards for chemical companies to
follow, allowing the industry to tailor its own
''so we can go about the objective of raising our
security in a way that doesn't destroy the
businesses we're trying to protect.''

''There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, and we're
going to let chemical operators figure out the
right way, as long as the cat gets skinned,''
Chertoff said.

The Homeland Security Department would probably
rely on private auditors to review and monitor
chemical plant protections so ''we don't
necessarily deaden our efficiency by insisting
that the government do everything itself,'' he
said.

Chemical plants are believed to be a top target
for al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations,
and past investigations have revealed spotty
results in how well the industry is prepared to
respond to an attack. Nearly one-fifth of the
nation's chemical facilities are located in areas
where a toxic release could affect 50,000 or more
people.

Chertoff said there are no specific or credible
threats against the industry.

Currently, chemical companies voluntarily secure
their facilities. But Congress for years has
considered -- though never approved -- ways to
regulate the industry akin to other potentially
vulnerable targets like nuclear power facilities
and commercial airports.

The House and Senate are examining legislation
that would give Homeland Security authority to
shut down chemical plants that repeatedly fail to
create, update and submit security plans for their
facilities.

The administration's proposal was greeted warmly
by the American Chemistry Council, which
represents about 130 major chemical companies,
including seven firms based in other countries.
Those companies have spent an average of $1.5
million per plant to bolster security, while some
of their competitors have avoided those costs by
refusing to update protective measures.

The proposal ''will ensure the entire chemical
sector -- a critical part of our national
infrastructure -- is adequately protected,'' said
council president Jack Gerard.

But critics said the proposal relies too much on
the chemical industry to police itself.

''It's a lot like putting a 'Beware of dog' sign
out in the yard but not actually buying a guard
dog,'' said Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass. He said
federal regulations should spell out minimum
protections against different kinds of terror
attacks, adding that the use of outside auditors
was like ''having the private sector grade the
industry's homework.''

Environmental groups also criticized the
administration for not requiring the industry to
substitute chemicals with safer substances that
would be less dangerous to the public in an attack
or accidental release.

The omission, said Andy Igrejas of the National
Environmental Trust, ignores the one security
measure ''that would fully protect the public.''

Chertoff said requiring those safer substitutes
would represent ''mission creep'' -- shifting the
security focus to environmental concerns. He
declined to specify whether federal regulations
would trump state rules, a point of concern for
governors and some in Congress.

Several Republican and Democratic lawmakers
stopped short of endorsing the proposal but were
pleased the Bush administration appeared ready to
regulate the industry.

''The clearly stated intent of terrorists to cause
maximum harm to the American people and to our
economy makes these measures necessary,'' said
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

^------

On the Net:

Homeland Security Department:
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 22 [Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Russian nuclear forces, 2006 | 

thebulletin.org
 

NRDC: Nuclear Notebook
 	
By Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen

 March/April 2006  pp. 64-67 (vol. 62, no. 02) � 2006 Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists 

[R] ussia continues to transition from its Cold War nuclear
stockpile, further reducing its total nuclear forces in 2005 but
also announcing plans for new weapon systems and upgrades of
existing ones. [1]  The Russian government appears to be
attempting to reassert its nuclear strength after years of
decline in order to underscore its status as a powerful nation.
To this end, President Vladimir Putin said Russia has reinstated
large-scale military exercises, and military officials made
several statements about the role of Russia's nuclear posture. 

We estimate that as of early 2006, Russia has approximately
5,830 operational nuclear warheads in its active arsenal. This
includes about 3,500 strategic warheads, a decrease of some 300
from last year's level due to the withdrawal of approximately 36
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from operational
service. Our estimate of operational nonstrategic nuclear
weapons is 2,330 warheads, more than a thousand warheads fewer
than our previous estimate (see "Russian Nuclear Forces,
2005,"March/April 2005 Bulletin) due to a recount of operational
launch platforms and Russian statements about reductions. 

Estimating the size, composition, and status of the total
Russian nuclear stockpile has always been difficult due to the
lack of official information. Based on the best available data,
we estimate that the current stockpile of intact warheads is
around 16,000. With just over one-third (about 5,800) considered
active and operational, the balance occupies an indeterminate
status. Some may be officially retired and awaiting disassembly;
others may be in short- or long-term storage, similar to the
U.S. categories of "responsive force" or "inactive reserve." 

Russian officials made several statements in 2005 about why
Russia needs to maintain and modernize its nuclear forces.
Following several embarrassing missile launch failures in 2004,
Putin took a personal interest in improving the image of
Russia's nuclear capability. "Large-scale, regular army and navy
exercises have resumed after what was too lengthy a hiatus,"
Putin told the Russian Security Council in June 2005. On August
16, he flew aboard a Tu-160 Blackjack bomber and participated in
the test-launch of a Kh-555 conventional cruise missile in the
Arctic. [2] 

In December, Col. Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, chief of the Russian
general staff, clarified Russia's strategic posture, telling
Novosti that Russia "had long stopped preparing for large-scale
nuclear and conventional wars. We will continue to prepare for
the defense of our territory, but we will not be preparing for a
war on foreign land." In a January 2006 Wall Street Journal
op-ed, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov added his first priority
"is to maintain and develop a strategic deterrent capability
minimally sufficient for guaranteed repulsion of contemporary
and future military threats." 

On December 24, 2005, Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, the commander
of Russia's strategic missile forces, reaffirmed another layer
to Russia's posture. Amid a dispute between Russia and Ukraine
over natural gas supplies, Solovtsov told ITAR-TASS that
Russia's "nuclear umbrella" defends "not only Russia but also
all [Commonwealth of Independent States] countries, including
Ukraine," an interesting statement given Ukraine's aspiration to
join NATO. [3]  Solovtsov also pointed to proliferation as a
justification for Russia's nuclear arsenal, saying that "many
countries are eager to come in possession of nuclear weapons;
the nuclear club will be expanding." Russia's plans to develop
its strategic missile forces will take "into account all these
threats. We're working on new missile complexes and new types of
equipment with completely new characteristics," he added. [4] 

As we predicted two years ago, the emerging U.S. antiballistic
missile defense system has provoked a direct Russian response.
[5]  Missile defense appears to be a major part of Russia's
decision to retain multiple-warhead ICBMs and to develop new
weapons capabilities. In November, Solovtsov said that new
warheads for silo-based Topol-M missiles (NATO designation
SS-27) and mobile Topol-M1s (SS-X-27) are undergoing testing.
[6]  One type of warhead reportedly involved a maneuverable
reentry vehicle known as "Igla" that changes altitude and
direction to evade missile defenses. Indeed, at the December
commissioning ceremony of the fifth Topol-M ICBM regiment at
Tatishchevo, Solovtsov emphasized that the weapon "is capable of
penetrating any missile defense system." [7]  (Unidentified U.S.
officials confirmed that the November 1, 2005, Topol-M
test-launch had a shorter than usual boost phase, and that after
being delivered into orbit, the reentry vehicle flew to a lower
trajectory, where it was able to maneuver.) [8] 

Since 2004, Russian officials have made several announcements
that suggest what the future strategic force might look like
after implementation of the 2002 Moscow Treaty, which sets an
upper limit of no more than 2,200 operationally deployed
strategic warheads by 2012 for both the United States and
Russia. Officials described significant changes to the size and
composition of the ICBM force, lesser changes for the submarine
force, and a bomber force that will remain essentially the same.
The table "Projected Strategic Warheads, 2006-2015"contains
estimates based on several assumptions: that the annual
deployment of Topol-Ms continues at about six single-warhead
missiles per year; that Russia commissions two new
third-generation strategic subs and maintains five operational
Delta IIIs; and that Blackjack bomber production remains low. 

If these plans are realized, they will significantly reduce
Russia's emphasis on ICBMs, traditionally the backbone of its
strategic for-ces, by withdrawing most of the multiple-warhead
SS-18s and SS-19s. This will result in a 60 percent decrease of
ICBM warheads, from nearly 2,000 to roughly 760 during the next
four years. A decision to equip single-warhead missiles with
multiple warheads after START I expires in 2009 would change
this projection significantly. 

ICBMs. Russia currently deploys 549 operational ICBMs, down 36
missiles from a year ago. In 2005, Russia disbanded two missile
divisions but formed more than 20 new units (probably
regiments), according to Solovtsov. [9]  He later added that in
2006, Russia plans to increase "the number of launching sites
and missiles provided by the [defense] industry . . . by 10, 12,
or 15," but that money was an issue. [10] 

The last 15 rail-based SS-24 M1s, the division at Kostroma, were
withdrawn from service, leaving four ICBM types: SS-18s, SS-19s,
SS-25s, and SS-27s. Significant changes are expected in the next
four years. Russia will likely retire approximately 40 SS-18s
produced in the early 1980s and up to 400 warheads. Some 45-50
newer version SS-18s and approximately 30 SS-19s will undergo
modifications and upgrades to extend their service lives for
another 15 years. Eventually, Russia will deploy only two types
of ICBMs: Topol-Ms and Topol-M1s. 

The fifth Topol-M regiment entered service in December 2005 with
the Tatishchevo division in the Saratov region, bringing the
number of operationally deployed SS-27s to 44. The new regiment
appears to be equipped with less than a full complement of
missiles due to a lack of funding. Deployment of the Topol-M
began at Tatishchevo in 1997. Russia's 2006 budget includes
funds for six Topol-Ms. [11]  Russia plans to deploy three
Topol-M1s later this year at Teykovo (near Moscow) and six more
in 2007. 

Since the Topol-M carries a single warhead, a future force of
two divisions, or 200 missiles, would result in a dramatic
reduction from the nearly 2,000 ICBM warheads operational today,
or the approximately 6,500 ICBM warheads of 20 years ago. If
Russia wanted to increase the number of ICBM warheads, it could
do so in one of several ways: equip each missile with more than
one warhead; deploy more missiles; or both. Rumors have
circulated in the Russian media that Moscow might equip the
Topol-M with between three and six warheads. [12]  START II
prohibited placing multiple warheads on ICBMs, but the United
States and Russia abandoned this landmark agreement in 2002. Yet
because START I prohibits increasing the number of warheads
attributed to a specific ICBM type, Russia probably will wait
until after 2009, when the treaty expires, to increase Topol-M's
payload. The Topol-M has a throw weight of 1.2 tons, similar to
the U.S. Minuteman III, which can carry up to three warheads. 

The number of road-mobile SS-25s continues to gradually decrease
from a peak of 360 a few years ago to the 291 now deployed at
nine locations. The single-warhead SS-25 entered service in
1985, and its service life may have to be extended due to the
slow introduction of the Topol-M1. A November 29, 2005,
test-launch of a 20-year-old SS-25 was intended to verify that
the missile can serve beyond its original design life of 10
years. Following the test, a Russian Strategic Missile Force
statement confirmed that "the Topol [SS-25] service life could
be extended to 23 years" with some modification. This could
enable the oldest missiles to remain operational through 2009
and the newest ones through 2018. 

The number of SS-19s also continues to decline, with 129
remaining in service, down from 140 in January 2005. The
six-warhead missile was scheduled for elimination under START
II, but after the agreement's demise, Putin declared that
deployment of "tens" of additional SS-19s with "hundreds of
warheads" would begin in 2010. [13]  Any new deployments are
likely to be made from the 30 or so SS-19s that have been in
storage; older versions are likely to be retired by 2009. An
SS-19 was flight-tested on October 20, 2005. 

Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). The
strategic submarine fleet has shrunk from a Cold War high of 62.
Today 12 boats--six Delta IVs and six Delta IIIs--are deployed
with two of Russia's four fleets. Of the Delta IVs, the
Verkhoturye, Yekaterinburg, and Novomoskovsk are active, and the
Tula, Bryansko, and Karelia are undergoing overhauls. Work on
the Tula was completed last spring, but by the end of 2005 the
boat had not yet returned to service due to a contract dispute.
All six are with the Northern Fleet and based in Gadzhiyevo on
the Kola Peninsula. 

Of the 14 original Delta III subs, six remain: The
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Svyatoy Giorgiy Pobedonosets,
Zelenograd, and Podolsk are based at Rybachi on the Kamchatka
Peninsula; the Ryazan and Borisoglebsk are based in Gadzhiyevo.
The military may be using a seventh nonoperational Delta III,
located at Rybachi, as a test platform. Though rumors suggest
that Russia might retire the Delta III-class subs during the
next few years, this will have to be coordinated with the
introduction of new Borey-class SSBNs in order to achieve the
planned goal of 208 submarine-launched ballistic missiles
(SLBMs) in 2010. On September 30, the navy test-fired an SS-N-18
M1 SLBM from the Svyatoy Giorgiy Pobedonosets. 

Two Borey-class subs are under construction at the Severodvinsk
shipyard on the Kola Peninsula--both of them behind schedule.
The military has pushed back the service entry of the initial
boat, the Yuri Dolgoruki, until 2007, according to the new
commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Adm. Vladimir Masorin.
[14]  The navy first flight-tested the SLBM that the sub is to
carry, the Bulava (NATO designation SS-NX-30; also called RSM-56
in Russia or Bulava-M for morskoy, "naval"), on September 27,
2005, and fired a second test on December 21. The navy launched
the missiles from the Dmitri Donskoi, a Typhoon-class submarine
that has been modified to be a test platform for the Bulava. The
submerged submarine launched the missiles from the White Sea
toward a target at the Kura test range in Kamchatka. 

Each Borey-class sub will carry 12 Bulava missiles, which Russia
provided new details about as part of the July 2005 START data
exchange. The three-stage, solid-fuel SLBM is almost 38 feet
long and weighs approximately 81,000 pounds at launch--10 feet
shorter and 17,000 pounds lighter than the SS-N-23 SLBM. (The
U.S. Trident II D5 weighs 127,000 pounds.) It is unclear how
many warheads the Bulava will carry (the December 21 flight-test
carried only a single reentry vehicle). Media reports have
speculated as many as 10, but more reentry vehicles increase
weight and limit range. After the completion of flight-testing,
Russia will declare the warhead count under START. (When the
treaty expires in 2009, Russia and the United States will no
longer be required to declare the warhead count for new
ballistic missiles.) Meanwhile, inadequate funding for the
Bulava program means "there is little chance the missile can be
put into service . . . in 2007" as planned, according to Yuri
Solomonov, chief missile designer at the Moscow Institute of
Thermal Technology. [15] 

The keel of the second Borey-class sub Alexander Nevsky was laid
down at Severodvinsk in March 2004 with delivery scheduled for
2008 at the earliest. A third boat, tentatively named Vladimir
Monomakh, is scheduled to begin construction in March 2006 and
to be completed in 2012. The Russian Navy would like to acquire
three additional Borey SSBNs for a total of six, but if
construction continues at the current pace, the final sub would
not be ready until 2026--30 years after the keel was laid on the
Yuri Dolgoruki. The future fleet, more than likely, will be
about the size of the British or the French SSBN fleets, which
have four subs each. 

The Russian Navy conducted three SSBN deterrent patrols in 2005,
two in 2004, two in 2003, and none in 2002--far from the 61
patrols conducted in 1990. The U.S. Navy, in comparison,
continues to operate at near-Cold War levels and conducts more
than 40 SSBN patrols per year. 

Strategic aviation. Russian strategic bombers are deployed with
two divisions of the 37th Air Army and include 78 aircraft of
three types: 14 Tu-160 Blackjacks, 32 Tu-95 MS6 Bear H6s, and 32
Tu-95 MS16 Bear H16s. According to the July 2005 START
memorandum of understanding, bomber deployments remain
essentially the same as in 2004. The same can be said for the
bomber weapons (see "Russian Nuclear Forces, 2004,"July/August
2004 Bulletin). 

Russia continues to upgrade its Blackjack bombers with improved
avionics and communications equipment and to modify them to
carry new types of missiles with conventional and nuclear
warheads. [16]  This includes a nuclear variant of a new cruise
missile (Kh-102), similar to the U.S. advanced cruise missile
but with a prop engine. The weapon has been under development
for more than a decade and may be deployed in 2006. Like the
United States, Russia has begun to convert a portion of its
air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) to non-nuclear versions
(Kh-555s). In December 2004, a senior Russian Air Force official
stated that the first Kh-555s had been delivered. 

Small-scale production of the Blackjack resumed in 2004. The
Russian Air Force will receive one bomber in February and
another by the end of 2006, a senior air force official told
Novosti in December 2005. Russia's new defense plans envision a
force of 75 bombers in 2010. If Blackjack production continues
after 2006, the bombers will likely replace Bears on a
one-for-one basis. The development of conventional ALCMs seems
to indicate that Russia envisions a more active bomber force. 

Nonstrategic weapons. The most difficult area of Russia's
nuclear forces to assess is its nonstrategic arsenal. Like the
United States, Russia provides few details about the numbers or
status of its nonstrategic nuclear weapons. Nonofficial
estimates reach as high as 15,000, but given its limited
resources Russia probably keeps most nonstrategic weapons in
reserve or awaiting dismantlement. 

In a 1992 letter to the U.N. secretary-general, President Boris
Yeltsin pledged that production of warheads for ground-launched
tactical missiles, artillery shells, and mines had stopped and
that all such warheads would be eliminated. In addition, Russia
would dispose of half of all airborne and surface-to-air
warheads, as well as one-third of all naval warheads. In 2004,
the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that "more than 50 percent"
of all these warhead types have been "liquidated." [17]  With a
Russian nonstrategic stockpile of some 19,600 warheads in
mid-1988, the implementation of the Yeltsin initiative would
leave a stockpile of some 6,500 nonstrategic warheads. [18] 

Based on operational nuclear--capable delivery platforms,
knowledge about the size and composition of the nonstrategic
stockpile during the Cold War, and statements made by Russian
officials about implementation of the 1991-1992 presidential
initiatives, we estimate that Russia maintains approximately
2,330 operational nonstrategic warheads and some 4,170
nonstrategic warheads in reserve. The operational warheads
include: approximately 700 warheads for antiballistic missile
and air defense systems (the A-135 system around Moscow and the
SA-10 Grumble/S-300 system); some 975 air-to-surface missiles
and bombs for delivery by land-based Tu-22M Backfire and Su-24
Fencer strike aircraft; and 655 warheads for cruise missiles,
anti-air missiles, antisubmarine rockets, and torpedoes
delivered by submarines, surface ships, and land-based naval
aircraft. All naval warheads are stored on land. 

1. Useful references for following Russian strategic nuclear
forces include the U.S. Foreign Broadcast Information Service
(FBIS); Pavel Podvig's web site www.russianforces.org; and the
database "Russia: General Nuclear Weapons Developments,"
maintained by the Monterey Institute's Center for
Nonproliferation Studies
(www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/weapons/gendevs.htm). 

2. Douglas Barrie and Alexey Komarov, "Seeing Red: Funding Focus
on Upgrades, as Fifth-Generation Fighter Ambitions Are Stymied,"
Aviation Week and Space Technology, August 22, 2005, p. 38. 

3. "RF [Russian Federation], Ukraine to Sign Deal to Extend
Operation of Strategic Missiles," ITAR-TASS, December 24, 2005.
The quote was worded differently in another source: "We should
not forget that our nuclear umbrella covers not only Russian
territory but all the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States]
countries, including Ukraine" ("Russia-Ukrainian Gas Dispute
Unrelated to Heavy Missile Use," Novosti, December 24, 2005). 

4. "Russian Army Acts on Possible 'Nuclear Club' Expansion,"
ITAR-TASS, December 12, 2005. 

5. See Hans M. Kristensen et al., "The Protection Paradox,"
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April 2004, pp. 68-77. 

6. "Russia to Equip Topol-M Systems with New Warheads," Novosti,
November 14, 2005. 

7. "Russia Deploys New Set of 'Unbeatable' Missiles,"
www.mosnews.com, December 25, 2005. 

8. Bill Gertz, "Russian Warhead Alters Course Mid-Flight in
Test," Washington Times, November 21, 2005, p. A3. Whether the
maneuverable reentry vehicle will be installed on all or only a
few of the Topol-Ms remains to be seen. "This is a very
expensive technology," Russian General Staff Chief Yury
Baluyevsky said, "and its production depends on the situation."
"Russia Has Technology to Outsmart Anti-Missile Systems:
Expert," Novosti, January 12, 2005. 

9. Some Western media said the Russian military stated that it
had "formed two missile divisions" (emphasis added). See "Russia
Declares All 2005 Missile Tests Successful," Global Security
Newswire, December 1, 2005. 

10. "Russia Set to Disband Several Missile Units in 2006,"
Novosti, January 5, 2006; "Russia to Order More Strategic
Missiles," Novosti, November 14, 2005. 

11. "Russia to Order More Strategic Missiles," Novosti. 

12. "Russia Test-Fires Mobile Version of Its Latest Missile,"
Associated Press, December 24, 2004; Vladimir Isachenkov,
"Russia Deploys New Batch of Strategic Nuclear Missiles,"
Associated Press, December 22, 2003. 

13. Russian Federation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Concluding
Remarks by President Vladimir Putin at a Meeting with Russian
Armed Forces Commanders, Moscow, October 2, 2003," Daily News
Bulletin. According to one report, this concerns 30 missiles.
Dmitriy Litovkin, "'We'll Get All of Them from Capetown to
Beijing,'" Izvestia, October 21, 2003. 

14. Evgeni Ustinov and Roman Fomishenko, "New Calibers of
'Astrakhan,'" Krasnaya Zvezda, November 17, 2005, p. 1. 

15. "Russia to Test-Fire New Submarine-Based Ballistic Missile,"
Agence France Presse, December 2, 2005. 

16. "Russia Air Force Modernization and Flight Safety Plans,"
Krasnaya Zvezda, January 16, 2004. 

17. Russian Federation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Alexander
Yakovenko, the Spokesman of Russia's Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Answers a Russian Media Question at Press Conference at
RIA Novosti Concerning Russia's Initiatives for Reducing
Tactical Nuclear Weapons," October 7, 2004. 

18. Thomas B. Cochran et al., Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume
IV: Soviet Nuclear Weapons (New York: Harper and Row, 1989), p.
28. 

  
Nuclear Notebook is prepared by Robert S. Norris of the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Hans M. Kristensen of the
Federation of American Scientists. Inquiries should be directed
to NRDC, 1200 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington,
D.C., 20005; 202-289-6868. 

March/April 2006 pp. 64-67 (vol. 62, no. 02) � 2006 Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists 

Operational Russian strategic offensive weapons
   
  Type     Name     Launchers     Year deployed     Warheads x
yield (kilotons)     Total warheads   
  [ height=]   
  ICBMs                                 
  SS-18     Satan     85     1979     10 x 550/750 (MIRV)    
850   
  SS-19     Stiletto     129     1980     6 x 550/750 (MIRV)    
774   
  SS-25     Sickle     291     1985     1 x 550     291   
  SS-27     Topol-M     44     1997     1 x 550     44   
  SS-X-27     Topol-M1     n/a     ~2006     1 x ?     0   
  Total           549                 1,959   
  [ height=]   
  SLBMs                                 
  SS-N-18 M1     Stingray     6/96     1978     3 x 200 (MIRV)  
  288   
  SS-N-23     Skiff     6/96     1986     4 x 100 (MIRV)     384
  
  SS-NX-30     Bulava     n/a     ~2007/08     n/a     0   
  Total           12/192                 672   
  [ height=]   
  Bombers                                 
  Tu-95 MS6     Bear H6     32     1984     6 x AS-15A
 ALCMs or bombs     192   
  Tu-95 MS16     Bear H16     32     1984     16 x AS-15A
 ALCMs or bombs     512   
  Tu-160     Blackjack     14     1987     12 x AS-15B
 ALCMs, AS-16
 SRAMs, or bombs     168   
  Total           78                 872   
  [ width=]   
  Grand total                             ~3,500*   
  ALCM: air-launched cruise missile; ICBM: intercontinental
ballistic missile; MIRV: multiple independently targetable
reentry vehicle; SLBM: submarine-launched ballistic missile;
SRAM: short-range attack missile. *Russia has approximately
6,000 additional nonoperational, intact warheads.   


Operational Russian nonstrategic and defensive weapons
   
  Type     Name     Launchers     Year deployed     Warheads x
yield (kilotons)     Total warheads   
  [ height=]   
  ABM                                 
  51T6/53T6     Gorgon/ 
Gazelle     32/68     1989/1986     1 x 1000/10     100   
  [ height=]   
  Air defense                                 
  SA-10     Grumble     1,900     1980     1 x low yield     600
  
  [ height=]   
  Land-based aircraft                                 
  Bombers/fighters     n/a     ~490     n/a     ASM or bombs    
975   
  [ width=]   
  Naval                                 
  Submarines/ 
surface ships/ 
fighters     n/a     n/a     n/a     SLCMs, ASWs,
 SAMs, ASMs,
 bombs, or torpedoes     655   
  Grand total                             ~2,330*   
  ABM: antiballistic missile; ASM: air-to-surface missile; ASW:
antisubmarine weapons; SAM: surface-to-air missile; SLCM:
sea-launched cruise missile. *Russia has approximately 4,170
additional nonstrategic warheads in its reserve.   

Projected strategic warheads, 2006-2015
   
        2006     2010     2012     2015   
  [ width=]   
  ICBMs     1,959     760     778     605   
  SLBMs     672     720     528     576   
  Bombers     872     866     866     866   
  Total     3,503     2,346     2,172     2,047   
      

Operational Russian strategic offensive weapons   

Operational Russian nonstrategic and defensive weapons   

 Projected strategic warheads, 2006-2015
  
Copyright 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists               
*****************************************************************
 23 Xinhua: Bush urges Congress to approve nuclear deal with India   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-23 06:47:07   

    WASHINGTON, March 22 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President George W.
Bush urged the Congress on Wednesday to approve the
controversial nuclear deal with India that would provide nuclear
technology to the country. 

    "It's in our interest that India use nuclear power to power
their economic growth because ... there's a global connection
between demand for fossil fuels elsewhere and price here," Bush
said during a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia. 

    India has proven itself over 30 years to be a
non-proliferator,Bush said. 

    Bush, during his visit to India earlier this month, sealed
the U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement with Indian Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh on March 2, and the United States will
accordingly provide civilian nuclear technology to India. 

    However, the deal has been strongly opposed by the U.S.
Congress who argued that India did not sign the Nonproliferation
Treaty and the move could embolden other countries to try to
acquire nuclear technology. Enditem 

  Copyright �2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 24 Xinhua: S. Africa not supporting proposed nuclear rules   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-23 06:40:37   

    JOHANNESBURG, March 22 (Xinhua) -- South Africa will not
support proposed new nuclear rules precluding it from pursuing
uranium enrichment, a high-ranking foreign affairs official said
on Wednesday. 

    Abdul Minty, the foreign affairs deputy director-general,
made the statement at a briefing in a parliamentary committee on
the situation in Iran. It's been proposed that Iran can only use
nuclear fuel enriched on Russian soil. 

    Minty said that concerns about Iran should not lead to
similar restrictions for other developing countries. 

    He said that South Africa is planning a pebble bed nuclear
reactor which means that the country may be interested in
enriching uranium. 

    U.S. President George W. Bush has proposed that countries
not involved in enrichment be precluded from doing so. 

    Minty, also South Africa's representative on the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) warned that any
military attack on Iran over the nuclear weapons dispute could
lead to greater instability in the Middle East. 

    He said developments in the region are not conducive to
peace, however, many commentators believe that such an invasion
is improbable. Enditem 

  Copyright �2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 25 AFP: Japanese FM voices concern on India-US nuclear deal 

 Wed Mar 22, 3:15 AM ET 		 	 

TOKYO (AFP) - Japan's foreign minister voiced concern that a
landmark nuclear deal between India and the United States set a
"double standard" that could hurt diplomacy over Iran" />
Iranand North Korea" /> North Korea. 

 The comments by outspoken Foreign Minister Taro Aso were at
odds with earlier statements by Japan, a staunch US ally which
has been seeking closer ties with India. 

"It is good that inspectors can get in there," Aso said of
Indian civilian nuclear reactors. 

"But our largest concern is that the current order becomes
obsolete," he said in reference to the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. 

Aso told a parliamentary panel on diplomacy and national defense
that he had voiced his concerns to US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Rice. 

He said he told Washington "to take into consideration not
having a negative influence on Iran and North Korea," which are
in the midst of standoffs over their nuclear ambitions. 

"I also told Rice the deal would be criticized for sure as being
a double standard," Aso said, as quoted by public broadcaster
NHK. 

US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushsealed
the deal earlier this month for Washington to provide civilian
nuclear technology in return for New Delhi accepting UN
inspectors at most of its civilian nuclear plants. 

But the plan faces domestic opposition in both countries with
some Indians upset by slights to their sovereignty and a number
of US lawmakers saying it sets a bad precedent since India has
not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, the government spokesman,
had earlier reacted positively to the nuclear deal. He said
India, unlike North Korea, "shares the values of freedom,
democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law." 

Both Abe and Aso, potential candidates to succeed Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi later this year, have called for closer ties
with India to compensate for sour relations with closer neighbor
China. 

China has reacted warily to the US-India deal, saying it must
conform with international non-proliferation standards. 

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 26 UPI: U.K. terror cell 'sought nuclear weapon'
     
  United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

3/22/2006 12:05:00 PM -0500                             

LONDON, March 22 (UPI) -- A member of a terror cell that
allegedly conspired to bomb Britain was involved in a plot to
buy a nuclear weapon, a London court heard Wednesday. 

Salahuddin Amin, one of seven men accused of plotting to bomb a
British civilian target, made inquiries about a deal to purchase
the weapon from Russian mafia in Belgium, prosecutors said. 

Amin was allegedly passed information about an available
radioisotope bomb while attending a terrorist training camp in
Pakistan. He later told police he did not believe the offer was
genuine, but prosecutor David Waters said the affair signaled
Amin's standing within terrorist circles. 

Waters said: "Abu Munthir (whom he had once met in a British
mosque) asked Amin to contact a man named Abu Annis on Munthir's
behalf. Amin did so via the Internet and Abu Annis said they had
made contact with the Russian mafia in Belgium and from the
mafia they were trying to buy this bomb. 

"Amin told the police in interview that he didn't believe this
could be genuine. In his own words, he didn't think it was
likely 'that you can go and pick an atomic bomb up and use it'." 

Whether or not the prospect of acquiring and using the bomb was
realistic, Amin had made a "fundamental" contribution to the
plot to cause explosions, he said. 

Tuesday the court heard that six of the defendants had trained
at terrorist camps in Pakistan, two were said to have worked for
al-Qaida's third-in-command and one said that Britain "needed to
be hit because of its support for the United States." 

They had allegedly acquired bomb ingredients with the plan of
attacking a nightclub, train or bar, but the plot was averted
before they could agree on a target. The men, mostly
British-born, are standing trial after being held at Belmarsh
prison for up to two years.

� Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 27 [pirgenergy] News from NJ Budget
 
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:39:31 -0800

<x-flowed>
Subject: [pirgenergy] News from NJ Budget

Gov: Nuclear plants should pay state for security


Posted by the <http://www.app.com>Asbury Park Press on 03/22/06

BY <MAILTO:NCLUNN@APP.COM>NICHOLAS CLUNN
STAFF WRITER

It will cost the state $4.4 million to guard the Oyster Creek nuclear power 
plant in Lacey and three other commercial reactors in New Jersey this 
fiscal year. On Tuesday, Gov. Corzine said he wants the plants' owners to 
pick up the bill.

Corzine included the assessment as part of his $30.9 billion proposed 
budget, which he unveiled Tuesday. It's one of several ways the state can 
increase revenue and close an estimated $4.3 billion budget gap, Corzine says.

The assessment would offset expenditures of $1.6 million for the State 
Police and $2.8 million for the National Guard, according to Corzine's 
proposal.

Both groups supplement private security forces stationed at all four 
reactors. State Police conduct patrols in and around each reactor 24 hours 
a day.

The three other reactors are in Lower Alloways Creek, Salem County.

Oyster Creek, the nation's oldest nuclear power plant, is operated by 
AmerGen Energy Co. AmerGen's parent company, Exelon, owns Oyster Creek.

The plant's original 40-year operating license expires in 2009, but AmerGen 
has asked federal regulators for a 20-year renewal.

AmerGen spent $20 million on security in 2004. The addition of 
bullet-resistant lookout towers, razor-sharp fences and other measures were 
meant to satisfy new federal standards inspired by the terrorist attacks of 
Sept. 11, 2001.

image0015.gif<javascript:NewWindow(450,300,'/apps/pbcs.dll/art_tips?Date=20060322&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=603220331&SiteData=B3&SectionCat=');>E-mail 
article 
image0023.gifimage0032.gif<http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20060322&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=603220331&SectionCat=&Template=printart>Print 
article 
image0023.gifimage0041.gif<https://ssl1.gmti.com/asburypark/secure/icon_app/subscribe.html>Subscribe 
image0023.gifimage0051.gif<http://www.app.com/newsletters>Get e-mail alerts





Dena Mottola
Executive Director

NJPIRG
<http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?Pyt=Tmap&addr=11+North+Willow+Street&csz=Trenton%2C+NJ+08608&country=us>11 
North Willow Street
Trenton, NJ 08608

<mailto:dmottola@njpirg.org>dmottola@njpirg.org

tel:
fax:
mobile:

(609) 394-8155, ex. 306
(609) 989-9013
(609) 540-6609



<https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=17180220265&v0=681750&k0=414326790>Add me 
to your address book...

<http://www.plaxo.com/signature>Want a signature like this?





SPONSORED LINKS

<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+procurement&w1=Government+procurement&w2=Government+leasing&w3=Energy&w4=Government+grants+for+women&w5=Government+lease&w6=Government+contract&c=6&s=144&.sig=PYmlwmv9WlkI7r7m2CWr5w>Government 
procurement

<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+leasing&w1=Government+procurement&w2=Government+leasing&w3=Energy&w4=Government+grants+for+women&w5=Government+lease&w6=Government+contract&c=6&s=144&.sig=sq2N1C2kvdC6Na4CDjcbuw>Government 
leasing

<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Energy&w1=Government+procurement&w2=Government+leasing&w3=Energy&w4=Government+grants+for+women&w5=Government+lease&w6=Government+contract&c=6&s=144&.sig=t2JRAqRLnQbo9GgSyfrJEg>Energy 


<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+grants+for+women&w1=Government+procurement&w2=Government+leasing&w3=Energy&w4=Government+grants+for+women&w5=Government+lease&w6=Government+contract&c=6&s=144&.sig=sFNIv-4HjLFv-Gs9L9KqKw>Government 
grants for women

<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+lease&w1=Government+procurement&w2=Government+leasing&w3=Energy&w4=Government+grants+for+women&w5=Government+lease&w6=Government+contract&c=6&s=144&.sig=husSzeVOjE4KxKy5TjPB-Q>Government 
lease

<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+contract&w1=Government+procurement&w2=Government+leasing&w3=Energy&w4=Government+grants+for+women&w5=Government+lease&w6=Government+contract&c=6&s=144&.sig=ea79gSlZWCZGejn8HLejDA>Government 
contract



----------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


    *  Visit your group 
"<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pirgenergy>pirgenergy" on the web.
    *
    *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    * 
<mailto:pirgenergy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>pirgenergy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 

    *
    *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.



----------
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net


</x-flowed>


Attachment Converted: image00151.gif: 00000001,55dcc18f,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: image0023.gif: 00000001,55dcc190,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: image003219.gif: 00000001,55dcc191,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: image00231.gif: 00000001,55dcc192,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: image00412.gif: 00000001,55dcc193,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: image00232.gif: 00000001,5cc196e2,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: image00511.gif: 00000001,5cc196e3,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 28 [NukeNet] Revolving Door Of Nuclear Power-
 
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:39:58 -0800

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)


     How democratic of the SOB[s]:

 >From Senate job to nuclear lobbyist - twice
Key staffer's work helps industry from both sides
of 'revolving door'

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11845981/from/ET/


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 29 Las Vegas SUN: State Dept. Official Pushes Nuclear Deal 

Today: March 22, 2006 at 13:51:5 PST 

By BARRY SCHWEID ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Signaling a tough campaign, a top Bush
administration official urged Congress on Wednesday to approve a
landmark plan to share nuclear technology with India. 

"India can be trusted," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns
said. 

Critics, including former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., are skeptical of
the agreement reached March 2 by President Bush and Indian Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh of India. 

It requires Congress to exempt India from U.S. laws that
restrict trade with countries, such as India, that have not
submitted to full nuclear inspections. 

Among concerns raised by Nunn, who played a leading role on
military issues in Congress, were that the agreement would
promote a regional arms race with China and Pakistan and make it
more difficult for the United States to win support for
sanctions against such countries as Iran and North Korea. 

Burns said "we take his views very seriously." But, Burns said
at a news conference, "we're far better off" having India submit
to supervision under the agreement than having the country
isolated. 

He added that "India is a country that does not proliferate." 

"We are going to make a convincing case," Burns said. 

Legislation to implement the plan was introduced last week.
Burns said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would testify in
support of the measure. 

Also, two assistant secretaries of state, Richard Boucher and
Stephen Rademaker, were sent to Vienna to promote the plan with
the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of 35 nations that
export nuclear technology. 

"India is accepting international verification," he said. "India
is accepting international inspection. Who can argue with that?" 

He said the agreement reflects "the emergence of a new global
partnership between India and the United States." 

Burns said it should cause no problem with Pakistan,
traditionally a rival of India, and that the United States
maintains good, although different, relations with Pakistan. 

Pakistan on Tuesday successfully test-fired a cruise missile
that can carry a nuclear warhead and hit targets within a
310-mile range, the army said. 

Both Pakistan and India are nuclear-capable nations. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 30 Guardian Unlimited: Fire Breaks Out at Japanese Nuclear Plant
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday March 22, 2006 12:46 PM

TOKYO (AP) - Part of a nuclear power plant in western Japan was
on fire Wednesday, but an official said no radiation had leaked. 

Smoke poured from a waste disposal facility between the No. 3
and No. 4 reactors at Oi power plant in Fukui at about 6:40
p.m., local government official Hiroaki Fujiuchi said. Two
workers were treated for smoke inhalation. 

Oi is in Fukui prefecture, about 200 miles west of Tokyo. 

Firefighters had difficulty approaching the facility because of
the thick smoke, and it took them 90 minutes to confirm there
was a fire, said Ikuo Muramatsu, an official with the plant's
operator, Kansai Electric Power Co. 

The two injured workers were taken to a hospital, and local fire
officials said they had not been exposed to radiation.	 
		 	 	   

      Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 31 AP Wire: NRC team to pobe security concerns at N.C. nuclear plant

| 03/22/2006 | 

 EMERY P. DALESIO Associated Press 

RALEIGH, N.C. - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Wednesday
it expanded a probe into allegations that security guards
cheated on qualification tests at a nuclear power plant south of
Raleigh 

Two other allegations of poor security at the Shearon Harris
plant owned by Progress Energy Inc. - that security guards faced
retaliation for reporting injuries or for raising security
concerns - have yet to be fully evaluated by NRC staffers. 

"Concerns raised about cheating and intimidation trouble me
personally and the NRC is continuing its review of these
issues," Progress Energy chairman and chief executive Bob
McGehee said. "We do not tolerate this kind of behavior in our
workplace." 

McGehee said the company is retesting every security guard at
the nuclear plant to ensure they are qualified. 

"We will take all the appropriate action necessary based on
further information we receive from the NRC," he said. 

The NRC interviewed 91 security guards and reviewed company
documents in January about concerns raised the previous month by
the Union of Concerned Scientists and the North Carolina Waste
Awareness and Reduction Network. The groups raised 19 different
issues they said were reported to them by security guards at the
nuclear plant after their complaints to the NRC were ignored 

The investigative team wasn't able to substantiate nine of the
concerns and found that seven other complaints were accurate but
that "the safety and security significance of the concerns was
very low," the NRC reported. 

Those included door locks that malfunctioned and stayed open on
four occasions since October; the company has since replaced the
locks. Four times in 2005, guards accidentally fired their
weapons. No damage or injuries resulted, so the company wasn't
required to report the incidents, the NRC said. 

"We don't believe in any way the plant is any less secure. We
believe that they're properly implementing their security plan,"
NRC spokesman Roger Hannah said. 

The NRC's Office of Investigations was called in to investigate
the cheating allegation and find out whether people willfully
violated nuclear safety regulations, Hannah said. If
investigators find evidence of intentional violations, they
could turn over information to federal prosecutors, said Hannah,
who cautioned it was too soon to say the issue would get that
far. 

The NRC have "confirmed a lot of the problems and they're fixing
problems. That's the good news," said Jim Warren, executive
director of the North Carolina Waste Awareness Reduction
Network. 

--- 

On the Net 

NRC: 

NC WARN: 

Union of Concerned Scientists: 

Progress Energy:
*****************************************************************
 32 Bellona: Norsk Hydro could contribute to longer life-time of Kola NPP
 
Nils B�hmer from the Bellona Foundation says Norwegian company
Norsk Hydro could contribute to a longer life-time for Kola
Nuclear Power Plant, if the company decides to build the new
aluminium plant in Murmansk region. 

2006-03-22 17:37

He stresses that the two oldest reactors are classified among
the most dangerous in the world. The reactors recently got
prolonged its lifetime limit with 15 years. Head of information
in Hydro, Tor Steinum, does not want to comment on the company's
plans in Murmansk region to the Norwegian state channel NRK.   

  
  Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway



*****************************************************************
 33 BBC: Blaze at Japanese nuclear plant
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 22 March 2006
 
[The Ohi plant in Japan]                                

Nuclear power supplies a third of Japan's energy needs                                                                 

A fire has broken out at a nuclear plant in western Japan, 
injuring two people but causing no radiation leak, officials say. 

The blaze took hold in a waste disposal facility at the Ohi power 
plant in Fukui, 380km (236 miles) west of Tokyo. 

Two workers were taken to hospital with smoke inhalation. 
Officials have told the AP news agency the fire is now out. 

Japan is heavily reliant on nuclear power but confidence has been 
hit by a series of incidents in recent years. 

The Ohi plant is run by Kansai Electric Power Co (Kepco). 

Although the waste disposal facility is situated between two 
reactors, Kepco said the generators were not affected and were 
operating normally. 

'Thick smoke' 

Kepco said the blaze appeared to have begun in an area where ash 
is packed into steel barrels. 

[Map of Japan]                                                                                                  
                              
Some employees were evacuated after smoke filled the facility but 
workers in other areas were allowed to remain at their stations. 

Kepco's Ikuo Muramatsu said the smoke had delayed fire-fighters 
getting to the blaze for two hours. 

A prefectural official said the waste facility contained very 
low-level radioactive waste. 

"There was no impact on the environment and we have verified that 
the employees did not come in contact with unusual radiation," 
Reuters news agency quoted the unnamed official as saying. 

Japan has 55 nuclear reactors supplying one-third of its energy 
needs. 

The government says it wants to build 11 more plants. 

In August 2004 Kepco closed its plants temporarily after the 
worst-ever accident in Japan's nuclear power industry. 

Steam from a broken pipe killed five workers at one plant. 


*****************************************************************
 34 Platts: Exelon's Clinton down today after yesterday's scram
 

Washington (Platts)--21Mar2006
 
Clinton is out of service today after a reactor scram yesterday
caused by a
main turbine trip, Exelon Nuclear said in an event report to
NRC. 

Repair plans are being developed and "[t]roubleshooting is 
underway to determine the cause," Exelon spokesman Adam Slahor 
said in an e-mail today.


Exelon has "no estimate" of when Clinton will return to service, 
Slahor said.

														Terms & Conditions 
Copyright � 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       

  
*****************************************************************
 35 Platts: UK nuke industry must answer basic questions to have future - Wicks
 
London (Platts)--21Mar2006
 
The UK nuclear industry needs to answer some fundamental 
questions, if it is to be considered part of the future energy 
mix, energy minister Malcolm Wicks said Tuesday.

    Wicks said the nuclear industry must demonstrate that a 
shorter planning process for new plants, as called for by 
industry, would not result in a weakening of current safeguards.

    "I issue a challenge to the nuclear industry," Wicks told the 
British Nuclear Energy Society and European Nuclear Society 
Conference in London. "You are calling for greater certainty over 
licensing. You are calling for shorter planning processes. You 
are calling for the scope of planning inquiries to be restricted. 
But my challenge to you then is to show me how this might work in 
practice. How might you achieve these things while still 
maintaining the same high levels of scrutiny and safeguards we 
have now?"

    The UK's Energy Review, of which the future of nuclear power 
is an important feature, ends April 14. But Wicks said that even 
if the review came out in favor of nuclear power, that would not 
mean a green light for new nuclear build.

    "This is why we are tackling the issue of nuclear waste 
through the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, 
why we will be using the findings of the Committee on Radioactive 
Waste Management to inform the Energy Review and why we have 
asked the Health and Safety Executive to examine some of the 
risks associated with potential new build and their approach to 
ensuring industry sensibly manages these risks," he said.
 
Copyright � 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 36 Platts: South Africa mulls building conventional nuclear plant
 
London (Platts)--22Mar2006
 
South Africa is talking about building a conventional nuclear 
plant, separate from the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor project, Alec 
Erwin, South Africa's minister for public enterprise said today 
in London at a TopNux conference on new reactor systems. 

"We need to bring a baseload plant into the southern part of our 
grid," he said. 

Erwin told Platts that the reactor option was announced recently 
in South Africa but this was the first time it had been mentioned 
abroad. The feasibility study started last fall, he said, and 
would take about two years. But South African utility Eskom is 
starting "to fast track it now," he said. 

He said South Africa was not yet talking to international vendors 
but plans to after the study is completed.

For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at 
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
 
Copyright � 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 37 VG: NRC accepts VY license application; hearing request period is set

 March 22, 2006 Headlines | 


Vermont Guardian
 

BRATTLEBORO  Vermonters have about 60 days to request a hearing
on the proposed Vermont Yankee license extension, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission announced today. 

The hearing notice, which is expected to be published early next
week in the Federal Register, signals that the NRC has
officially accepted Entergys license extension application,
which was filed Jan. 25. 

The NRC staff has determined that the application contains
sufficient information for the agency to formally docket, or
file, the application and begin its technical review, according
to a press release. 

Docketing the application does not preclude requesting
additional information as the review proceeds; nor does it
indicate whether the commission will grant the application,
according to the statement. 

Vermont Yankees existing 40-year license expires March 21, 2012.
Entergy, which recently got NRC approval to increase power at
the boiling water reactor in Vernon by 20 percent, wants to run
the plant an additional 20 years, until 2032. VY currently
supplies about one-third of Vermonts total electricity, but
those contracts expire at the end of the current license. 

The power uprate has been stalled at 105 percent since March 4,
after excess vibrations on one of the plants main steam lines
exceeded acceptable levels. VY operators sent the data from
gauges on the line to General Electric, the company that built
the 535-megawatt reactor. Its not known how long it will take to
analyze the data, or when the uprate will be allowed to proceed. 

Company officials have said they are committed to safety, and
will not increase power further until it can be done safely.
Entergy has invested an estimated $60 million in uprate
modifications at the Vernon reactor, and stands to earn an
estimated $20 million in annual profits from the sale of
increased power, according to state officials. 

The Federal Register notice of opportunity to request a hearing
on the license extension is expected to be published early next
week, according to NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan. The deadline for
requesting a hearing is 60 days after publication of the notice. 

Petitions may be filed by anyone whose interest may be affected
by the license renewal and who wishes to participate as a party
in the proceeding, the NRC said. 

A request for hearing and a petition to intervene in the license
extension case must be filed with the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Requests may also be submitted by fax to (301) 415-1101 or by
e-mail to . 

A copy should also be submitted to the NRC Office of General
Counsel, by fax to (301) 415-3725 or e-mail to . 

Information about the license renewal process can be found on
the NRC website at . 

The Vermont Yankee renewal application is online at . 

An NRC review schedule for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station will also be posted on the NRC site and will identify
the deadline for requesting a hearing. 

This information can also be found in the agencys ADAMS document
database under ML0608006640. 

Posted March 22, 2006 

 Northern Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern 
Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT 05301 
Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 
(toll-free)

 �2005 Vermont Guardian | 

Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com
 This document can be located online:
www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/032006/032206.shtml 
*****************************************************************
 38 NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC); Notice of 
 
                         FR Doc E6-4153 
[Federal Register: March 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 55)] 
[Notices] [Page 14554-14558] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22mr06-109]                         
 
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating 
Licenses and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of 
an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and 
NPF-73, issued to FENOC (the licensee), for operation of the 
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2) 
located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
 
The proposed amendments requested by the licensee's February 25, 
2005, license amendment request (LAR) would represent a full 
conversion from the current Technical Specifications (CTS) to a 
set of improved Technical Specifications (ITS) based on 
NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications (STS) for 
Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 2, dated April 2001. Some 
additional changes were proposed by the licensee to make the 
resulting ITS more consistent with Revision 3 of NUREG-1431 dated 
June 2004. The proposed amendments would also consolidate the 
BVPS-1 and 2 TSs into a single set of ITS applicable to both 
units. The attachment to the licensee's February 25, 2005, LAR 
consists of 10 volumes.
 
Volume 1 contains a copy of the licensee's transmittal letter, a 
detailed description of the contents and organization of the BVPS 
ITS conversion LAR, a status of Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) changes to NUREG-1431, Revisions 2 and 3, a status 
of pending LARs, a list of beyond scope changes (BSIs), a CTS 
``roadmap'' showing the disposition of each BVPS CTS and its 
relation to the proposed BVPS ITS in CTS order, an improved STS 
``roadmap'' showing the correspondence of each improved STS to 
the proposed BVPS ITS and CTS in improved STS order, and the 
licensee's evaluation of environmental considerations for the 
proposed ITS conversion LAR.
 
NUREG-1431 has been developed by the Commission's staff through 
working groups composed of both NRC staff members and industry 
representatives, and has been endorsed by the NRC staff as part 
of an industry-wide initiative to standardize and improve the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for nuclear power plants. As part 
of this submittal, the licensee has applied the criteria 
contained in the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on 
Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors 
(Final Policy Statement),'' published in the Federal Register on 
July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to the CTS and using NUREG-1431 as a 
basis, proposed an ITS for BVPS-1 and 2. The criteria in the 
Final Policy Statement was subsequently added to Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.36, Technical 
specifications,'' in a rule change that was published in the 
Federal Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953) and became 
effective on August 18, 1995.
 
In addition to the conversion, the licensee also proposed 30 BSIs 
where the proposed requirements are different from the CTS and 
the STS of NUREG-1431. These include 25 items identified by the 
licensee as BSIs and 5 additional items that consist of TSTF 
Traveler Items that were pending at the time of the licensee's 
application, and which the NRC staff has determined it will treat 
as BSIs. The BSIs are identified later in this notice.
 
This notice is based on the application dated February 25, 2005, 
and the information provided to the NRC through the BVPS-1 and 2 
ITS Conversion Web page. To expedite its review of the 
application, the NRC staff issued its requests for additional 
information (RAIs) through the BVPS-1 and 2 ITS Conversion Web 
page and the licensee addressed the RAIs by providing responses 
on the Web page. Entry into the database is protected so that 
only licensee and NRC reviewers can enter information into the 
database to add RAIs (NRC) or providing responses to the RAIs 
(licensee); however, the public can enter the database to only 
read the questions asked and the responses provided. To be in 
compliance with the regulations for written communications for 
license amendment requests and to have the database on the BVPS-1 
and 2 dockets before the amendments would be issued, the licensee 
will submit a copy of the database in a submittal to the NRC 
after there are no further RAIs and before the amendments would 
be issued. The public can access the database through the NRC Web 
site at  by the following process: (1) Click on the tab labeled 
``Nuclear Reactors'' on the NRC home page along the upper part of 
the Web page, (2) then click on the link to ``Power Reactors'' 
which is under ``Regulated Reactors'' on the left hand side of 
the Web page, (3) then click on the link to ``Improved Standard 
Technical Specifications'' which is on right hand side of the 
page, (4) then click on the link for ``Improved Technical 
Specifications Data Base'' at the bottom of the page under the 
heading ``Conversion to Standard Technical Specifications,'' and 
(5) finally, click on the link to ``Beaver Valley Power Station 
Licensing Database,'' near the middle of the Web page, to open 
the database. The RAIs and responses to RAIs are organized by ITS 
Sections 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1 through 3.9, 4.0, and 5.0, and/or the 
BSI numbers. For most listed ITS sections or BSIs, there is an 
RAI which can be read by clicking on the ITS section or BSI 
number. The licensee's responses are shown by a solid triangle 
adjacent to the ITS section or BSI number, and, to read the 
response, you click on the triangle. To page down through the ITS 
sections
 
[[Page 14555]] to the BSIs, click on ``next'' along the top of 
the page or on ``previous'' to return to the previous page.
 
The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the CTS into 
five general groupings within the description of changes (DOC) 
section of the application. These groupings are characterized as 
administrative changes (i.e., ITS x.x, DOC A.xx), more 
restrictive changes (i.e., ITS x.x, DOC M.xx), relocated 
specifications (i.e., ITS x.x, DOC R.xx), removed detail changes 
(i.e., ITS x.x, DOC LA.xx), and less restrictive changes (i.e., 
ITS x.x, DOC L.xx). This is to say that the DOCs are numbered 
sequentially within each letter designator for each ITS Chapter, 
Section, or Specification, and the designations are A.xx for 
administrative changes, M.xx for more restrictive changes, R.xx 
for relocated specifications, LA.xx for removed detail changes, 
and L.xx for less restrictive changes. These changes to the 
requirements of the CTS do not result in operations that will 
alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an analyzed accident 
or transient event.
 
Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring, 
renumbering, rewording interpretation and complex rearranging of 
requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or 
substantially revising an operating requirement. The 
reformatting, renumbering and rewording process reflects the 
attributes of NUREG-1431 and does not involve technical changes 
to the CTS. The proposed changes include: (a) Providing the 
appropriate numbers, etc., for NUREG-1431 bracketed information 
(information that must be supplied on a plant- specific basis, 
and which may change from plant to plant), (b) identifying 
plant-specific wording for system names, etc., and (c) changing 
NUREG-1431 section wording to conform to existing licensee 
practices. Such changes are administrative in nature and do not 
impact initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of 
accident or transient events.
 
More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent 
requirements compared to the CTS for operation of the facility.
 
These more stringent requirements do not result in operation that 
will alter assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident 
or transient event. The more restrictive requirements will not 
alter the operation of process variables, structures, systems, 
and components described in the safety analyses. For each 
requirement in the STS that is more restrictive than the CTS that 
the licensee proposes to adopt in the ITS, the licensee has 
provided an explanation as to why it has concluded that adopting 
the more restrictive requirement is desirable to ensure safe 
operation of the facility because of specific design features of 
the plant.
 
Relocated changes are those involving relocation of requirements 
and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or 
variables that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in TSs. 
Relocated changes are those CTS requirements that do not satisfy 
or fall within any of the four criteria specified in the 10 CFR 
50.36(c)(2)(ii) and may be relocated to appropriate 
licensee-controlled documents.
 
The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described 
in the attachment to the licensee's February 25, 2005, letter, 
which is entitled, ``A Description of the Beaver Valley Power 
Station, Improved Technical Specification (ITS) Conversion 
License Amendment Request (LAR),'' in Attachment 1 of the 
submittal. The affected structures, systems, components or 
variables are not assumed to be initiators of analyzed events and 
are not assumed to mitigate accident or transient events. The 
requirements and surveillances for these affected structures, 
systems, components, or variables will be relocated from the TSs 
to administratively-controlled documents such as the quality 
assurance program, the UFSAR, the ITS Bases, the licensing 
requirements manual (LRM) that is incorporated by reference in 
the UFSAR, the core operating limits report, the offsite dose 
calculation manual, the inservice testing program, the inservice 
inspection program, or other licensee-controlled documents. 
Changes made to these documents will be made pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.59 or other appropriate control mechanisms, and may be made 
without prior NRC review and approval. In addition, the affected 
structures, systems, components, or variables are addressed in 
existing surveillance procedures that are also controlled 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. Removed detail changes, are changes to 
the CTS that eliminate detail and relocate the detail to a 
licensee-controlled document. Typically, this involves details of 
system design and function, or procedural detail on methods of 
conducting a surveillance requirement (SR). These changes are 
supported, in aggregate, by a single generic no significant 
hazards consideration (NSHC). The generic type of removed detail 
change is identified in italics at the beginning of the DOC.
 
Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are 
relaxed or eliminated, or new plant operational flexibility is 
provided. The more significant ``less restrictive'' requirements 
are justified on a case-by-case basis. When requirements have 
been shown to provide little or no safety benefit, their removal 
from the TSs may be appropriate. In most cases, relaxations 
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis 
were the result of (a) generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff 
positions that have evolved from technological advancements and 
operating experience, or (c) resolution of the Owners Groups' 
comments on the improved STSs. Generic relaxations contained in 
NUREG-1431 were reviewed by the NRC staff and found to be 
acceptable because they are consistent with current licensing 
practices and NRC regulations. The licensee's design is being 
reviewed to determine if the specific design basis and licensing 
basis are consistent with the technical basis for the model 
requirements in NUREG-1431, thus providing a basis for the ITS, 
or if relaxation of the requirements in the CTS is warranted 
based on the justification provided by the licensee.
 
These administrative, relocated, more restrictive, removed 
detail, and less restrictive changes to the requirements of the 
CTS do not result in operations that will alter assumptions 
relative to mitigation of an analyzed accident or transient 
event.
 
In addition to the proposed changes solely involving the 
conversion, there are also changes proposed that are different 
from the requirements in both the CTS and the STS NUREG-1431. The 
BSIs are listed below in which the first 25 were identified by 
the licensee and addressed in Enclosure 4 to its application. The 
remaining 5 BSIs were identified by the NRC staff and were 
originally categorized as pending TSTF items by the licensee. In 
some cases, the BSI is addressed as a justification for deviation 
(JFD) from the STS, and identified as ITS x.x, JFD x. These BSIs 
to the conversion, listed in the order of the applicable ITS 
specification or section, are as follows [note that the words 
below that are capitalized are terms that are defined in the 
ITS]: 1. BSIs-1 and 2, propose changes to the BVPS-1 analog Rod 
Position Indication (RPI) system. BVPS-2 uses a digital RPI 
system and the proposed change does not apply to BVPS-2. The 
proposed changes would modify the CTS 3.1.3.2 notes to apply the 
1-hour thermal soak time to all power levels instead of only to 
power levels above 50%, and to apply the exception to the ? 12 
step-requirement during rod insertion and withdrawal (provided by
 
[[Page 14556]] the Mode 2 footnote) to any time ``during rod 
motion.'' The CTS 3.1.3.1 notes would be moved directly to the 
ITS 3.1.4 limiting condition for operation (LCO) (ITS 3.1.4, DOC 
L.1, JFD 2, and ITS 3.1.7.1, DOC L.2, JFDs 2 and 5).
 
2. BSI-3 proposes changes to the improved STS time limit and 
power level specified in the note modifying SR 3.3.1.3. The 
proposed time limit would change from 1 to 7 days and the 
proposed power level would change from >=15% rated thermal power 
(RTP) to >=50% RTP. (ITS 3.3.1 and SR 3.3.1.3 note, DOC M.12, 
JFDs 4 and 6) 3. BSI-4 proposes changes to improved STS SR 
3.3.1.6 (ITS SR 3.3.1.9) to change the time allowed to perform 
the surveillance from 24 hours after RTP is >=50%, to 7 days. 
Additionally, the BSI proposes to change the requirement to 
perform SR 3.3.1.9 every 92 effective full- power days (EFPD) 
thereafter, to perform the surveillance ``once per fuel cycle'' 
(ITS 3.3.1, SR 3.3.1.9 note, DOC M.19, JFD 7). 4. BSI-5 proposes 
a change to ITS SR 3.3.4.2 frequency for verifying the 
operability of the Remote shutdown System control and transfer 
switches from 18 months to 36 months. CTS 3.3.3.5 currently does 
not have operability or SRs for these control and transfer 
switches (ITS 3.3.4, SR 3.3.4.2, DOC M.4, JFD 1). 5. BSI-6 
proposes a change to the improved STS note that modifies the 
precision heat balance SR to require the surveillance to be 
performed within 30 days of reaching the specified power level 
vice within 24 hours of reaching the specified power level (CTS 
4.2.5.2 and its note 2 do not contain a specified time limit in 
which to perform the heat balance) (ITS 3.4.1, SR 3.4.1.4 note, 
DOC M.1, JFD 1). 6. BSIs-7-11 propose revising the improved STS 
note for verifying reactor coolant pump (RCP) and residual heat 
removal (RHR) pump standby pump breaker alignment and power 
availability every 7 days (and within 24 hours after the pump is 
not in operation) to remove the requirement for performing the 
surveillance within 24 hours after the pump is not in operation 
and considering the SR to be met for a pump just removed from 
operation and to clarify that the starting time for the 7-day SR 
begins ``when the pump is removed from operation'' instead of 
when the pump ``is not in operation.'' The CTS SRs do not have a 
note containing the 24-hour requirement for the RCPs and RHR 
pumps (ITS SR 3.4.5.3, DOC L.3, JFD 2, SR 3.4.6.3, DOC L.4, JFD 
2, SR 3.4.7.3, DOC L.5, JFD 4, SR 3.4.8.2, DOC L.4, JFD 3, and SR 
3.5.9.2, DOC M.1, JFD 2). 7. BSI-12 proposes to change the 
improved STS 3.4.18, ``Isolated Loop Startup,'' LCO and SRs 
related to the isolated loop temperature to be more consistent 
with the BVPS safety analyses assumptions and CTS RCP start 
restrictions. The improved STS requires that the isolated loop 
temperature be no greater than 20[deg] below the operating loop 
temperature before the cold leg isolation valve can be opened.
 
The licensee proposes to change this requirement to, ``the cold 
leg temperature must be >= the minimum reactor coolant system 
(RCS) temperature assumed in the analysis before the cold leg 
isolation valve can be opened.'' In addition new temperature 
requirements are added similar to the temperature restrictions 
for starting an RCP in ITS 3.4.7, ``RCS Loops-Mode 5'' (ITS 
3.4.18, DOC M.1, JFDs 1 and 2). 8. BSIs-13 and 14 propose to 
remove the valve isolation times from SR 3.7.2.1 for the main 
steam isolation valves (MSIVs), and SR 3.7.3.1 for the main 
feedwater isolation valves (MFIVs), main feedwater regulating 
valves and associated bypass valves and replace the times with a 
specific reference that the isolation time of each valve is 
``within limits.'' The valve isolation times would be relocated 
to the LRM and future changes would be controlled under 10 CFR 
50.59. The licensee states that this is consistent with the 
previously approved relocation of other valve response times such 
as for containment isolation valves. The CTS SR 4.7.1.5 for MSIVs 
would thus be changed; however, the licensee has no CTS for MFIVs 
(ITS SR 3.7.2.1, DOC LA.1, JFD 3, and ITS SR 3.7.3.1, DOC M.1, 
JFD 2). 9. BSIs-15-17 propose changes to the improved STS 3.7.7 
and 3.7.8 to provide a new Action Condition C, rather than the 
application of LCO 3.0.3, for the case where 2 component cooling 
water (3.7.7) or 2 service water (3.7.8) trains are inoperable 
resulting in insufficient cooling capacity for decay heat removal 
in Mode 4 such that the plant cannot cool down to Mode 5 (ITS 
3.7.7 and 3.7.8, DOC L.3, JFD 2). 10. BSI-18 proposes changes to 
ITS 3.7.9, Ultimate Heat Sink [UHS],'' Action Condition B, such 
that the proposed Action does not include the improved STS upper 
and lower temperature limits, but will require more frequent 
monitoring of the UHS temperature when the single BVPS limit for 
each unit is exceeded rather than an immediate unit shutdown, and 
would require a unit shutdown when the UHS temperature averaged 
over the previous 24 hours exceeds the limit (ITS 3.7.9 Action A, 
DOC L.1, JFD 2). 11. BSI-19 proposes to modify the notes in 
improved STS SRs 3.8.1.2 and 3.8.1.3 to add the words ``or based 
on operating experience,'' to supplement the phrase ``as 
recommended by the manufacturer'' (ITS SR 3.8.1.2 and SR 3.8.1.3, 
DOC L.19, JFD 17). 12. BSI-20 proposes to modify improved STS SR 
3.8.1.5 by changing the requirement to ``Check for and remove 
accumulated water from each day tank [and engine mounted tank]'' 
to ``Check and remove water from each engine mounted tank.'' A 
note has been added to indicate that this is applicable to BVPS-1 
only (ITS SR 3.8.1.5.1, DOC L.18, JFD 10).
 
13. BSI-21 proposes a note to ITS SR 3.8.2.1 to address the 
surveillances (SRs 3.1.8.13 and 3.8.1.14) used to verify the 
capability of the automatic load sequencer function of the 
emergency diesel generators (EDGs). The note states that the load 
sequencer function SRs only include the verification of loads 
applicable (necessary for operability) in the shutdown modes of 
operation (Modes 5 and 6) addressed by ITS 3.8.2 (ITS SR 3.8.2.1 
Note 2, DOC L.3, JFD 5). 14. BSI-22 proposes to revise improved 
STS SR 3.8.2.1 by the addition of Note 3. Proposed Note 3 to ITS 
SR 3.8.2.1 states, ``SR 3.8.1.14 is only required to be met with 
the use of an actual or simulated loss of offsite power signal.'' 
SR 3.8.1.14 verifies the response of the emergency bus and EDG to 
an engineered safety features (ESF) signal in conjunction with a 
loss of offsite power. The proposed note is intended to clarify 
that in the shutdown modes addressed by SR 3.8.2.1, there are no 
required ESF actuation signals. The ESF actuation instrumentation 
specified in ITS 3.3.2 is only required to be operable in Modes 
1-4, and ITS 3.8.2, ``AC Sources Shutdown,'' is only applicable 
in Modes 5 and 6 (ITS SR 3.8.2.1 Note 3, DOC L.3, JFD 6).
 
15. BSI-23 proposes to revise improved STS SR 3.9.3.3 by making 
changes to ITS 3.9.3.c.2 intended to be consistent with the 
design and licensing basis for BVPS-1 and 2. The LCO requirement 
that specifies that each penetration providing direct access from 
the containment atmosphere to the outside atmosphere be capable 
of being closed by an OPERABLE Containment Purge and Exhaust 
Isolation System and its associated surveillance (SR 3.9.3.3) are 
made applicable to Unit 2 only, and a provision is added for Unit 
1 only (ITS 3.9.3.c.3) that allows the Purge and Exhaust System 
penetrations to be open when the system air is exhausted to an 
OPERABLE Supplemental Leak
 
[[Page 14557]] Collection and Release System train (ITS 
3.9.3.c.2, DOC L.1, JFD 3).
 
16. BSI-24 proposes to incorporate a note into ITS 3.9.5, ``RHR 
and Coolant Circulation--Low Water Level,'' and ITS 3.9.4, ``RHR 
and Coolant Circulation--High Water Level.'' NRC-approved TSTF-21 
Revision 0, incorporated a Bases change to ITS 3.9.5 that 
provides an exception to the requirement for the RHR loop to be 
circulating reactor coolant to allow both RHR pumps to be aligned 
to the refueling water storage tank (RWST) to support filling or 
draining of the refueling cavity or for performance of required 
testing. This exception was incorporated into NUREG-1431, 
Revision 3. In a letter dated April 29, 1999, from W. D. Beckner, 
NRC, to J. Davis, Nuclear Energy Institute, the NRC recommended 
that TSTF-21, Revision 0 be revised to include an LCO exception 
note to remove the RHR loop from operation (i.e., from 
circulating coolant) to support cavity fill and drain or to 
support required testing. The licensee's note incorporates this 
NRC recommendation which was not incorporated into TSTF-21, 
Revision 0 or NUREG-1431, Revision 3 (ITS 3.9.4, LCO Note 3 and 
ITS 3.9.5, LCO Note 3, DOC L.4, JFD 3). 17. BSI-25 proposes to 
revise improved STS 5.5.4.b which states, ``The provisions of SR 
3.0.2 are applicable to the above required Frequencies [improved 
STS 5.5.4.a] for performing inservice testing activities.'' The 
licensee states that the list in improved STS 5.5.4.a lists some 
of the test intervals referenced in the inservice testing 
requirements but is not a comprehensive list. The licensee 
proposes to revise ITS 5.5.4.b to state, ``The provisions of SR 
3.0.2 are applicable to the above required Frequencies and other 
normal and accelerated Frequencies specified in the Inservice 
Testing Program for performing inservice testing activities.'' 
This would expand the applicability of SR 3.0.2 provisions to all 
inservice testing requirements intervals and not just those 
listed in ITS 5.5.4.a (ITS 5.5.4.b, DOC L.4, JFD 34). 18. BSI-26 
proposes to incorporate pending TSTF-412, Revision 0, which would 
provide actions and clarify the operability status when one steam 
supply to a turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump is 
inoperable.
 
19. BSI-27 proposes to incorporate pending TSTF-451-T, Revision 
0, which would provide corrections to the battery monitoring and 
maintenance program (Section 5.0) and the Bases of SR 3.8.4.2 
(Section 3.8). 20. BSI-28 proposes to incorporate pending 
TSTF-453-T, Revision 2, which would provide a new specification 
in Section 3.1 and revise existing requirements in Section 3.3 to 
more completely address a rod withdrawal from subcritical 
conditions (RWFS) event. The TSTF adds new boron concentration 
operating restrictions during conditions when the power range 
nuclear instrumentation may not be able to provide the necessary 
trip function to protect against an RWFS event.
 
21. BSI-29 proposes to incorporate pending TSTF-472-T, Revision 
0, which corrects a Bases error introduced by implementation of 
NRC- approved TSTF-283 (approved in November 2000). This affects 
Section 3.8. 22. BSI-30 proposes to incorporate pending TSTF-482, 
Revision 0, which would provide editorial enhancements to the 
Bases for LCO 3.0.6. Before issuance of the proposed license 
amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 
Commission's regulations.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's public document room (PDR), located at One White 
Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 
at the NRC Web site, .
 
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge 
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the 
petitioner/ requestor in the proceeding, and how that interest 
may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition 
should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should 
be permitted with particular reference to the following general 
requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the 
requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party 
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/ 
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order 
which may be entered in the proceeding on the 
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also 
identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those 
specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware 
and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 
applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall 
be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under 
consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would 
entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/ 
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to 
at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a 
party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on
 
[[Page 14558]] a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ; or (4) 
facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, 
verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent 
to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that 
copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission 
to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . A copy of the request for 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent 
to David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop 
A-GO-18, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308, attorney for the 
licensee.
 
If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff 
may issue the amendment after it completes its technical review 
and prior to the completion of any required hearing if it 
publishes a further notice for public comment of its proposed 
finding of no significant hazards consideration in accordance 
with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92. For further details with respect to 
this action, see the application for amendment dated February 25, 
2005, which is available for public inspection at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible 
electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on 
the Internet at the NRC Web site, .
 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415- 
4737, or by e-mail to .
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of March 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Timothy G. Colburn, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 
Branch I-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-4153 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 39 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant
 
News Release - Region II - 2006-00
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region II
  No. II-06-004   		        March 22, 2006   
  CONTACT:     Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417     E-mail:   
  

representatives of Southern Nuclear Operating Company on
Wednesday, March 29, to discuss the agencys assessment of safety
performance last year at the Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant, located
26 miles southeast of Augusta, Ga.

 The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin
at 12 noon at the Burke County Courthouse in Waynesboro, Ga. The
NRC staff will present the results of the assessment and be
available to respond to questions or comments from the public
before the close of the meeting. 

The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Vogtle plant
and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities, NRC
Region II Administrator William Travers said. This meeting is a
chance for us to discuss that safety performance with the
company, with local officials and with people living near the
plant.

 A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at:
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/vog_2005q4.pdf [PDF
Icon] . 

The NRCs assessment concluded that the Vogtle plant operated
safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection
findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant
performance. The colors start with green and then increase to
white, yellow or red, depending on the safety significance of
the issues involved.

 All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for
Vogtle during 2005 were determined to be green. As a result of
this performance, the NRC is conducting the normal or baseline
level of inspections this year. 

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in
Rockville, Md. Among the areas to be inspected during 2006 by
NRC specialists are containment emergency recirculation sump
blockage and reactor vessel head penetrations. 

Current performance information for the two units at the Vogtle
plant is available on the NRCs web site at:
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/VOG1/vog1_chart.html and
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/VOG2/vog2_chart.html.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, March 22, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 40 AFP: Germany still needs nuclear power: economy minister

 Wed Mar 22, 7:05 AM ET 		 	 

TOKYO (AFP) - German economy minister Michael Glos said his
nation still needs nuclear energy, calling for a review of the
previous administration's decision to shut down its atomic power
plants. 

"Peaceful use of nuclear power plants is an important factor in
forming an appropriate energy mix. 

"Use of safe nuclear plants is the path that we should take,
within the context of the G8 (Group of Eight powerful nations)
and the European Union" /> European Union," he told reporters on
a visit to Japan. 

Glos emphasized his view was purely personal and said he
realized it would be difficult to reverse the decision taken by
the previous government under Gerhard Schroeder" /> Gerhard
Schroederto phase out nuclear power. 

But a review of Germany's energy policy was required because of
political instability in oil and gas producer regions, he said. 

"I hope, in Germany, the domestic support for peaceful use of
nuclear power would rise to a majority," he said through a
Japanese translator. 

"Energy resources, such as oil and natural gas, are often
developed in areas that are politically not stable. That leads
to risks," he said. 

"I think there have been changes in public opinion" on the
issue, he said. 

The recent Russian-Ukrainian gas dispute has reignited the
debate about the future of nuclear energy in Germany. 

Members of the conservative Christian Socialist Party, of which
Glos is a leading figure, have suggested that the decision on
nuclear power by the previous administration should be
postponed. 

However, others in the ruling coalition, including Environment
Minister Sigmar Gabriel, a member of the Social Democrats -- led
by Schroeder until after his defeat in the September general
election -- oppose a reversal. 

Glos also expressed hope that Iran" /> Iranwould accept Moscow's
proposal under which uranium to be used in Iranian reactors
would be enriched in Russia, in the aim of solving the
international standoff over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. 

"The situation in Iran affects the global oil market. I hope the
Russian proposal would result in a solution to the problem," he
said. 

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 41 AFP: Two hospitalized in fire at Japanese nuclear facility

 Wed Mar 22, 8:14 AM ET 		 	 

TOKYO (AFP) - A fire broke out at a nuclear facility in central
Japan, slightly injuring two workers who inhaled smoke but not
causing a radiation leak. 

 Firefighters rushed to the Ohi plant run by Kansai Electric in
Fukui prefecture after smoke billowed out of a unit that
disposes of equipment used in radioactive activity at 6:40 pm. 

"Two workers were sent to hospital but we confirmed they were
not exposed to any radiation," said Naoki Kumagai, an official
in the nuclear safety office of the prefecture, 350 kilometers
(220 miles) west of Tokyo. 

"Firefighters are checking if there is any damage to the
facility," Kumagai said on Wednesday. 

The crews were still working to control a small fire within the
facility some three hours later, although no more injuries were
expected, said another prefectural official. 

The fire broke out inside the core unit that disposes of
radioactive material but it was not in operation at the time of
the accident. The four reactors of the Ohi plant remained in
use. 

Resource-strapped Japan, which is one of the world's biggest oil
importers, depends on nuclear power for about 30 percent of its
electricity needs. It is the third biggest nuclear generator
after the United States and France. 

But Japanese nuclear energy companies have come under fire for a
string of accidents in recent years blamed on human error and
poor maintenance, stirring local opposition to hosting reactors. 

In August 2004 four workers were killed and seven others
severely burned by a leak of non-radioactive steam registering
200 degrees Centigrade (390 degrees Fahrenheit) at the Mihama
plant west of Tokyo. 

That was the first fatal incident at a nuclear-related plant in
Japan since September 1999, when two workers were killed and 600
people exposed to radiation at the Tokaimura uranium plant
northeast of Tokyo. 

In February, Japanese technology giant Toshiba agreed to buy US
nuclear power plant leader Westinghouse for 5.4 billion dollars,
one of the biggest Japanese acquisitions in years. 

Some analysts saw the purchase as a sign that Toshiba saw power
plant growth not in Japan but in the United States, where
President George W. Bush" /> 's administration wants to return
to nuclear power amid soaring oil costs. 

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 42 edie news centre: Improve safety guarantees, nuclear industry told
 	
(22 March 2006)                   

The nuclear industry must give better safety guarantees and 
improve on transparency if it wants to build new power stations, 
the Government has said.                        

Most of the UK's aging nuclear stations will be out of
action by 2020 

As the energy review that is to decide the future of nuclear
power in the UK continues, energy minister Malcolm Wicks told
the nuclear industry that it must back up its demands for
quicker and easier planning procedures for power stations with
proof that it can make them safe. 

Speaking at the British Nuclear Society and European Nuclear
Society conference in London on Tuesday, he said: 

"Today I issue a challenge to the nuclear industry. You are
calling for greater certainty over licensing. You are calling
for shorter planning processes. You are calling for the scope of
planning inquiries to be restricted." 

"But my challenge to you then is to show me how this might work
in practice. How might you achieve these things while still
maintaining the same high levels of scrutiny and safeguards we
have now?" 

"There is another question that needs to be addressed. Given
public concerns and suspicions, and at times distrust of past
secrecy, how can we promote open debate about nuclear." 

Over the course of the six-month energy review, the Government
has been criticised for pushing the nuclear option as an answer
to energy security and climate change despite concerns over
radioactive waste and terrorist attacks. The public consultation
phase of the review will close in three weeks time. 

Britain's twelve existing power stations currently supply a
fifth of the country's energy. Eleven of them will close by
2020, presenting the Government with an additional energy
security challenge on top of gas and oil supply uncertainties. 

Meanwhile, the Nuclear Industry Association published a report
on Wednesday claiming British nuclear companies could provide
for 80% of new nuclear power station projects if the energy
review gives them the go-ahead later this year. 

By Goska Romanowicz 
			
� Faversham House Group Ltd 2006. edie news articles may be
*****************************************************************
 43 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Assessment for Millstone Nuclear Plant at Two Public Meetings
Scheduled for March 29

News Release - Region I - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-016                          
March 22, 2006 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. 
Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov  
  

representatives of Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., on
Wednesday, March 29, to discuss the agencys annual assessment of
safety performance at the Millstone nuclear power plant. The
period of performance to be discussed in Jan. 1 to Dec. 31,
2005. 

Dominion operates the Unit 2 and 3 reactors at the Waterford,
Conn., site. 

The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation,
is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. at the Leland F. Sillin, Jr.,
Training Center, located at the plant on Rope Ferry Road. 

NRC staff will also hold a joint meeting at 6 p.m. the same day
with Connecticuts Nuclear Energy Advisory Council (NEAC) to
discuss the annual assessment. That session will take place at
Waterford Town Hall, 15 Rope Ferry Road in Waterford. 

Before the meetings are adjourned, NRC staff will be available
to answer questions from the public on the safety performance of
the Millstone plant, as well as the role of the NRC in ensuring
safe plant operation. 

As we do every year, we have carefully reviewed the safety
performance of the Millstone nuclear power plant during the
previous calendar year, NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J.
Collins said. The meetings on March 29th will afford the public
a chance to learn more about the results of our assessment and
to pose any questions they might have regarding plant
performance or our oversight activities. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region I Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the discussion at the meetings. It
is available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/mill_2005q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] . Notices for the meetings, with agendas attached,
are available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) under accession numbers ML060660566
and ML060660570. The NRC slides will be available in ADAMS at
least three days before the meetings; they will be provided in a
revision to the meeting notices. ADAMS is accessible via the
agencys web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Help in using ADAMS is available by contacting the NRCs Public
Document Room at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at
PDR@NRC.GOV. 

Overall, the Millstone plant operated safely during the period.
The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance
indicators to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors
start with green and then increase to white, yellow or red,
commensurate with the safety significance of the issues
involved. Because all of the inspection findings and performance
indicators for the Millstone Units 2 and 3 during 2005 were
determined to be green, the plant will receive a baseline (or
routine) level of inspections during the upcoming assessment
period. 

Routine inspections are performed by three NRC Resident
Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists
from the Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa., and the
agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant
operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are the
replacement of the pressurizer during the next Unit 2 refueling
and maintenance outage, the plants independent spent fuel
storage facility, emergency preparedness and radioactive
material processing and transportation. 

Current performance information for Millstone Unit 2 is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/MILL2/mill2_chart.html. 

Current performance information for Millstone Unit 3 is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/MILL3/mill3_chart.html. 
 



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, March 22, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 44 RPI: Student Conference To Explore the Future of Nuclear Power

[Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)

March 22, 2006     Contact: Jason Gorss
 Phone: (518) 276-6098

Troy, N.Y.  As nuclear power returns to the national energy
agenda, the need for engineers and scientists in all sectors of
the field becomes ever more pressing. This years American
Nuclear Society (ANS) national student conference, to be held
March 30-April 1 at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, will offer
a glimpse at the future leaders in academia, government, and
industry, while featuring presentations from experts currently
working in these arenas.  

The theme of the conference is Nuclear Power: A Look at the
Future. More than 300 of the top nuclear engineering students
from across the country will gather to present their research
and participate in panels about nuclear energy,
non-proliferation, and international safeguards. The event,
which is organized and run by Rensselaer engineering students,
also features talks from a number of prominent professionals in
these fields, including:   
  + Admiral Frank Skip Bowman, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy
Institute 
  + Gregory Jaczko, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission 
  + Moustafa Bahran, Science and Technology Advisor to the
President of Yemen; Chairman, Yemen National Atomic Energy
Commission 
  + Joseph Indusi, Senior Scientist and Chair, Nonproliferation
and National Security Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory 
  + Myron Kratzer, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for Nuclear Affairs  

Rensselaer President Shirley Ann Jackson, who is former Chairman
of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has suggested that a
number of variables will influence the future of nuclear power,
including economics, waste disposal, proliferation, and
innovation in nuclear technology. But, she notes, a particularly
important variable is the availability of an adequate number of
engineers to design, build, and operate nuclear plants, and to
deal with the weighty public policy issues surrounding the
field. 

These are some of the students who will emerge as the next
generation of leaders in the field, says Don Steiner, director
of Rensselaers nuclear engineering program. The Department of
Energy has been encouraging utilities to seriously consider new
nuclear power plants, and there are going to be large numbers of
retiring nuclear engineers in the coming years. The students are
plugged into these issues, and that makes them very excited
about the future of nuclear engineering.  

Students from some of the top engineering programs in the
country will be presenting their research in a variety of areas,
from reactor safety to waste management to nuclear applications
in biology and medicine. 

The conference also will feature several panels and workshops
led by international experts, including a panel on the future of
the nuclear power industry, and a workshop geared toward helping
burgeoning nuclear scientists and engineers use their technical
expertise to develop strategies for preventing the spread of
weapons of mass destruction. 

For more information, including a schedule of events, visit the
conference Web site: 

About Rensselaer 
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, founded in 1824, is the
nations oldest technological university. The university offers
bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees in engineering, the
sciences, information technology, architecture, management, and
the humanities and social sciences. Institute programs serve
undergraduates, graduate students, and working professionals
around the world. Rensselaer faculty are known for pre-eminence
in research conducted in a wide range of fields, with particular
emphasis in biotechnology, nanotechnology, information
technology, and the media arts and technology. The Institute is
well known for its success in the transfer of technology from
the laboratory to the marketplace so that new discoveries and
inventions benefit human life, protect the environment, and
strengthen economic development.   

  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), 110 8th St., Troy, NY 
12180. (518) 276-6000   

[RPI]     Copyright � 19962005 Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute. All rights reserved worldwide.
*****************************************************************
 45 NRC: NRC Names J. Sam Armijo to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

News Release - 2006-03
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs     
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov No. 06-038     March 22, 2006   
  

and Engineering at the University of Nevada, Reno, has been
named to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) by
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The ACRS, authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, advises
the Commission on licensing and operation of nuclear power
plants, and related safety issues. 

Dr. Armijo earned his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Metallurgical
Engineering from Texas Western College and the University of
Arizona; and, his Ph.D. in Materials Science from Stanford
University. Dr. Armijo is internationally recognized as a
technical expert in nuclear fuels, plant materials, water
chemistry, and advanced nuclear power systems. 

Prior to his retirement in 1999, he worked for GE Nuclear Energy
as General Manager of the Nuclear Fuel business and as Chief
Technologist. In addition, he served as President of GE-ENUSA
Nuclear Fuels S.A., and as Director of the Japan Nuclear Fuel
Co. Ltd. 

Dr. Armijo has published more than 40 technical papers on
advanced nuclear power systems, materials technology and coolant
technology and has received several patents. He invented and led
the development of zirconium barrier fuel cladding used in
boiling water reactors worldwide, and has received several
awards for technical excellence, including GE's Steinmetz award
and the W. J. Kroll Zirconium medal. 

Dr. Armijo was elected a Fellow of the American Nuclear Society
in 1990 and has served as a senior advisor to TVA's Browns Ferry
Nuclear Safety Review Board and to the Argonne National
Laboratory Reactor Analysis and Safety Division.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, March 22, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 46 thebulletin.org: Terrorism: A shifting landscape | 

[Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists]

[The magazine of global security news and analysis]       
               
The war on terror and the Osama bin Laden manhunt have brought
an age-old debate about self-censorship to the geosciences. 

By  Josh Schollmeyer

 March/April 2006  pp. 8-9 (vol. 62, no. 02) � 2006 Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists 

[T] he camera angle was tight, neatly framing Osama bin Laden,
his second in command Ayman al-Zawahiri, and their two cohorts,
sitting in an indistinguishable ravine, perhaps somewhere along
the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The tape, which aired first on
Aljazeera a month after 9/11 and featured bin Laden praising the
attacks, contained no clues of the terrorists' location--until
its final few throwaway frames. 

As he watched the tape's concluding moments on CNN, Jack
Shroder, a geoscientist at the University of Nebraska at Omaha
(UNO), noticed something--the camera had been filming when it
was wrestled from its tripod. The tight frame around bin Laden
now swung suddenly upward, providing a split-second glance of
sheared crystalline rocks. "I know where that is!" exclaimed
Shroder, who mapped Afghanistan in the 1970s and cofounded the
Afghanistan Studies Center at UNO. "That's the Spin Ghar range." 

The rest happened quickly. After Shroder told a reporter where
he believed the tape was shot, U.S. government officials visited
him in Omaha and asked him to keep his expert opinion
quiet--they also enlisted him in the bin Laden manhunt.
Meanwhile, at the University of Cincinnati, geography researcher
Richard Beck was inspired by Shroder's deduction. Familiar with
the Pakistan side of the border from doing exploratory fieldwork
there for Amoco, Beck began formulating his own guess as to bin
Laden's whereabouts. Within a few weeks, he was forwarding
possible search targets, such as Afghanistan's Zhawar Kili cave
complex, to the U.S. military, officially ushering the
geosciences (geography and geology) into the war on terror. 

That two academics would work so closely with the government at
first gave no one in the geoscience community pause. The U.S.
government and geoscientists have been intertwined for decades;
a large number of geoscientists are either employees of offices
such as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, or they
work on outsourced projects that are bankrolled by federal
dollars. Nor were Beck and Shroder alone. A number of other
geoscientists rapidly realized their expertise could be applied
to combating terrorism. In January 2002, the Association of
American Geographers (AAG) held a workshop to discuss how its
members could aid in areas as disparate as emergency response
and biosecurity. 

Beck, too, wanted to collaborate with his colleagues. In the May
2003 issue of the AAG journal Professional Geographer, he
detailed his successes and frustrations in the bin Laden
search--with one caveat: "Some information sources used in this
study, some details of the method, and some conclusions have
been omitted" for the safety of U.S. personnel in Afghanistan. 

This proviso raised some hackles. "We're in the business of
fairness, openness, and transparency," says John O'Loughlin, a
geography professor at the University of Colorado and editor of
the non-AAG affiliated journal Political Geography. "Anything
that violates that doesn't belong in an academic journal." 

O'Loughlin contends that the gold standard for academic
publication is that research be replicable and that Beck's work
didn't meet that standard. Beck disagrees, arguing that Shroder
did exactly that when he commented on Beck's work (and revealed
much of his own) in a November 2005 Professional Geographer
article. "There's a certain segment of academia that's rabid,
and you're never going to satisfy them," Beck says. 

"Self-censorship is a completely legitimate thing to do," adds
Shroder, who, at the government's request, removed many
sensitive items from the Afghanistan Studies Center web site
after 9/11. 

Troubled by such sentiment, O'Loughlin is taking the matter to
the AAG Publications Committee in hopes of persuading it to
devise more rigid replication standards that would prevent
publication without, as he terms it, "the full Monty"--complete
openness--regarding methods and funding. 

As for Beck and Shroder, they've long relinquished their search
for bin Laden. Despite the criticism and the fact that bin
Laden's still at large, they believe they made an important
contribution to both geoscience and the war on terror.
Especially, Shroder says, considering bin Laden's new preferred
means of communication--audiotape. "They sure got the message
that we can tell where they are." 

Josh Schollmeyer is the Bulletin's assistant editor. 

March/April 2006 pp. 8-9 (vol. 62, no. 02) � 2006 Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists 

*****************************************************************
 47 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Bomb-grade bazaar | 

thebulletin.org
 
How industry, lobbyists, and Congress weakened export controls
on highly enriched uranium. 

By Alan J. Kuperman

 March/April 2006  pp. 44-50 (vol. 62, no. 02) � 2006 Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists 

"The responsibility falls to us, to take necessary action to
prevent the horrors of 9/11 being replayed, but on a nuclear
scale," declared Spencer Abraham, then-U.S. energy secretary, at
a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in May 2004.

[1] Taking up the cudgels, he announced that Washington was
establishing a Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), "to
secure, remove, or dispose of an even broader range of nuclear
and radiological materials around the world that are vulnerable
to theft . . . ensuring they will not fall into the hands of
those with evil intentions." The plan was applauded by many who
felt the United States was not acting quickly enough to
safeguard bomb-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) from
terrorists. [2] 

Yet, no sooner did the U.S. government take an important step
forward than it took a giant leap back. Barely a year after
Abraham's announcement, President George W. Bush signed into law
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which includes an amendment that
loosens restrictions on the export of HEU. Driven by a purported
need to assure the domestic supply of medical isotopes, which
was never actually at risk, the new statute retreats from more
than a quarter-century of U.S. efforts to phase out HEU commerce
and its catastrophic risks. 

The individuals responsible for this legislative debacle
comprise a sweeping cast of characters, including foreign
producers of medical isotopes, their U.S.-based lobbyists,
gullible sectors of the American medical community, and the
compliant lawmakers who spearheaded efforts on Capitol Hill. It
is a cautionary tale of how a single foreign company can weaken
U.S. national security through misleading scare tactics and cold
cash. 

  
Limiting risk
 

The United States began exporting HEU in the 1950s under the
Atoms for Peace program, which provided countries with research
reactors and other technologies if they foreswore the
development of nuclear weapons. The exported uranium was
enriched to 93 percent, identical to that in U.S. nuclear
weapons. 

Some two decades later, U.S. national security officials
belatedly awoke to the fact that such exports posed unacceptable
risks: The HEU could be diverted to construct relatively easily
designed, gun-type fission weapons similar to the atomic bomb
dropped on Hiroshima. Accordingly, in 1978, the United States
started phasing out HEU exports by developing substitute
research reactor fuel of low-enriched uranium (LEU)--which was
unsuitable for bombs--through its new Reduced Enrichment for
Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) Program at Argonne National
Laboratory. By increasing the density of LEU fuel, the program's
scientists managed to preserve reactor performance while sharply
reducing the risk of diversion for bombs. 

Over the years, the program expanded repeatedly to phase out
ever more HEU commerce. In 1986, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) applied the principle domestically, ordering
all NRC-licensed research reactors to convert from HEU to LEU as
soon as suitable fuel was available. Three years later, research
started on LEU substitutes for HEU "targets," which are
irradiated in nuclear reactors to produce medical isotopes.
Then, in the 1990s, the U.S. government explored the feasibility
of converting its own unlicensed reactors, which were not
covered by the NRC order, and initiated bilateral programs to
convert reactors in and supplied by China and the former Soviet
Union. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
the Energy Department created the GTRI, which incorporated and
expanded funding for the RERTR Program, enabling conversion even
of reactors with "lifetime cores" that did not require fresh
fuel. [3] 

Another crucial factor in limiting HEU commerce was an amendment
to the Energy Policy Act of 1992, sponsored by New York
Democratic Cong. Charles E. Schumer (who is now a senator). The
amendment established incentives for foreign recipients of U.S.
HEU exports to convert to LEU and barred further HEU exports
unless three conditions were met: the recipient could not use
existing LEU; the recipient pledged to convert as soon as a
suitable LEU fuel or target was developed; and the recipient was
actively working with the United States to develop such a
substitute. 

The Schumer amendment, in combination with LEU fuel development
and a drop in the construction of new reactors, facilitated a
rapid decline in U.S. HEU exports from an annual peak of nearly
three tons in the late 1960s to a few tens of kilograms or less
by the early 1990s--a reduction of 99 percent. [4] Since the
United States had been by far the world's largest exporter of
bomb-grade uranium, the global level of HEU commerce dropped
almost as precipitously. To date, 42 research reactors worldwide
have converted to LEU or are in the process of doing so, with
another 41 poised to convert to existing LEU fuel. The RERTR
Program is continuing to develop ultra-high density LEU fuel
that will enable the conversion of 23 remaining reactors. [5] 

The sharp decline in the use of HEU as reactor fuel has
spotlighted its growing use as targets to produce medical
isotopes--molybdenum 99 and its decay products, including
metastable technetium 99--that are utilized mainly in diagnostic
procedures but also for cancer treatment. Indeed, the only U.S.
HEU exports over the last few years have been to Canada for
isotope production. Worldwide, the top four isotope
producers--MDS Nordion in Canada, Mallinckrodt in the
Netherlands, Institut National des Radio�l�ments in Belgium, and
NECSA/NTP in South Africa--annually require a total of
approximately 85 kilograms of HEU, which constitutes a
significant portion of global HEU commerce and enough for
several nuclear weapons. [6] Nordion already has a stockpile of
more than 45 kilograms of unirradiated HEU, sufficient for one
nuclear bomb of the simplest type or more using a sophisticated
design. [7] 

Annual HEU usage for radiopharmaceutical production is
increasing to satisfy the rising medical demand for isotopes. In
addition, the production facilities typically store the waste
from processed targets, which contains hundreds of kilograms of
slightly irradiated HEU that is still enriched to about 90
percent and also useable in bombs. [8] But the
radiopharmaceutical facilities are often not as well-secured as
military ones, leaving some of them prime targets for
terrorists. As the U.S. government recently emphasized about HEU
stocks stored by isotope producers: "These are
proliferation-attractive materials." [9] 

The good news is that medical isotopes can be made with LEU
targets, which would eliminate the terrorist threat. Smaller
producers in Australia and Argentina already produce isotopes
using LEU targets, developed indigenously or by the RERTR
Program. The Energy Department recently confirmed that
"conversion from HEU to LEU targets is technically feasible for
all current processes." [10] Indeed, when Argentina recently
converted, the purity of its medical isotopes actually improved.
[11] But the four major producers stubbornly reject the
inconvenience and one-time cost of converting their production
lines. They continue to rely on targets of HEU--and in doing so,
they needlessly endanger us all. 

  
Changing the law
 

The primary agitator for weakening U.S. export controls on
bomb-grade uranium was Canada's Nordion, the world's largest
producer of medical isotopes and the main supplier to the United
States, which lacks a domestic producer. Nordion sought to
escape from the conversion requirement of the 1992 Schumer
amendment. Although Nordion's parent company had committed in
1990 to phase out HEU use by 2000, Nordion later deviated from
this pledge by designing a new facility based on HEU targets.
[12] To assuage U.S. criticism, Canadian government officials in
1997 signed diplomatic notes pledging to convert to LEU targets,
but Nordion dragged its feet on developing them while the
facility was being built. [13] 

Finally, in 2003, Nordion halted cooperation with the RERTR
Program's LEU target development effort, on the grounds that
conversion would be too expensive and would interrupt operations
of the soon-to-open facility. [14] In reality, the facility
could have been converted prior to start-up because it still has
yet to begin commercial operation due to unrelated technical
problems with the two new reactors that would irradiate the
targets and the plant that would process them. Meanwhile,
Nordion continues to produce isotopes with a decades-old reactor
and processing facility, which rely on targets of HEU supplied
by the United States. [15] 

The 1992 U.S. law appeared to give Nordion only two choices in
the long run: resume cooperation with the United States on
conversion to LEU targets or halt production of isotopes. But
Nordion devised a third option, which was to change U.S. law to
water down the antiterrorism export restrictions. To sponsor
this amendment in Congress in 2003, Nordion enlisted Republican
Richard Burr of North Carolina (then a congressman and now a
senator), who had been lobbied by radiologists at Wake Forest
University's medical school in his district at the behest of
groups representing the medical isotope industry. [16] Doctors
and officials at the school had also donated $30,000 to his
campaigns over the preceding six years. [17] In addition, Burr
was a well-known supporter of the nuclear industry, which had
contributed $66,500 to his campaign in the previous election
cycle, making him the seventh-highest recipient from the
industry among all 435 members of the House of Representatives.
[18] 

Nordion also flexed its legislative muscle through the
U.S.-based Committee on Isotope Supply, sponsored by the Council
on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals (CORAR), Inc. The
committee is nominally based in California but is chaired by
Grant Malkoske, a Nordion vice president in Canada. [19] It
retained a former NRC and Energy Department official,
Washington, D.C., attorney James Glasgow, as a
"consultant--legislative language." But apparently Glasgow did
more than just consult. An early electronic draft of the Burr
amendment, which sought to waive the HEU export restrictions,
reveals Glasgow as the "author" in its properties section. [20] 

The committee also paid more than $2 million to a Washington,
D.C.-based lobbying firm, the Alpine Group, Inc., which in turn
donated more than $25,000 to the members of the congressional
energy committees overseeing the HEU export-control legislation.
[21] Two of Alpine's founding partners, James D. Massie and
Richard C. White, are each listed by CORAR as a "congressional
lobbyist" for Nordion's U.S.-based committee. [22] White also
was connected to a lobbying letter to U.S. legislators signed by
members of the American College of Nuclear Physicians (ACNP).
His hidden hand came to light when ACNP members forwarded the
letter to Congress as a word-processing file but neglected to
change the file's properties section, which lists the "author"
as "Rich White." [23] The lobbyists also recruited help from the
Virginia-based Society of Nuclear Medicine, which posted three
template letters for its members to send to Congress. These
letters' properties sections likewise indicate the author as
either the Alpine Group or one of its employees. [24] 

Nordion was joined in its lobbying effort by Mallinckrodt, which
is headquartered in Missouri but produces isotopes in the
Netherlands. Mallinckrodt's facility has not recently depended
on U.S. HEU exports, instead drawing down its own small stock of
HEU. Although Mallinckrodt has investigated conversion to LEU
targets and found no technical obstacle, the company has sought
to ensure its continued ability to use HEU targets to avoid the
cost of conversion. [25] Accordingly, in 2003, it successfully
encouraged its home-state senator, Republican Christopher "Kit"
Bond, to sponsor the amendment in the Senate. [26] 

Nordion garnered the support of many U.S. physicians based on
the alarmist claim that unless the Burr-Bond amendment were
adopted, the 1992 law could interrupt the supply of medical
isotopes in the United States. This was a misleading scare
tactic on several grounds. First, in 13 years under the 1992
law, the United States had never rejected a single license
application to export HEU for use as targets to produce medical
isotopes. [27] Second, the 1992 law explicitly permitted such
exports so long as the recipient cooperated toward eventual
conversion of its production process to LEU targets. Third, the
current peak capacity for global isotope production is 250
percent of current demand, and Nordion is the only major isotope
producer in recent years to rely on U.S. exports of HEU. [28]
Thus, even if the United States were to halt HEU exports to
Nordion for refusing to cooperate on conversion to LEU, other
global producers could ramp up production temporarily to prevent
an interruption in the U.S. supply of isotopes, while
longer-term solutions were arranged. Fourth, Nordion maintains a
stockpile of HEU sufficient for targets to produce isotopes for
at least two years, so even if U.S. exports of HEU were halted,
the other producers would have at least two years to arrange to
satisfy the U.S. demand for isotopes without interruption. [29] 

Yet the scare tactic appeared to work. In 2003, Burr
successfully attached the amendment to the House energy bill,
and Bond attached it to a separate Senate environment bill. When
a House-Senate conference attempted to forge consensus on the
energy bill, it substituted a "compromise" version of the Burr
amendment that did not differ substantially from the original
because it was negotiated by two legislators who supported the
original amendment's intent--Burr and Republican Sen. Pete
Domenici of New Mexico. Both versions of the amendment waive the
1992 law's restrictions as they pertain to HEU exports for
isotope production in five countries: Canada, Belgium, France,
Germany, and the Netherlands. 

The revised version of the Burr amendment does have a few minor
differences. [30] For starters, it does not permit the NRC to
expand the list of states subject to the waiver. Also, the
National Academy of Sciences must report on the feasibility
(including cost) of producing isotopes without HEU. The energy
secretary must then report if any companies will supply the U.S.
market with isotopes produced without HEU. If production of
isotopes without HEU is feasible but not occurring, the energy
secretary must then investigate options for domestic production
of isotopes without HEU. Finally, when U.S. isotope requirements
can be met by producers without HEU, the Burr amendment becomes
inactive, which should bar any further HEU exports for targets
to produce isotopes. 

Although the revised Burr amendment appears to create a path
toward phasing out HEU exports, it is riddled with loopholes
that could perpetuate HEU exports indefinitely--even
facilitating their increase. Four of the specified recipient
countries are part of the European Union (EU), so the amendment
opens the door for U.S. HEU to be retransferred to 21 other EU
member states without notification, under the terms of the
U.S.-Euratom nuclear cooperation agreement, and to additional
states as the EU expands. Ironically, the United States has
expended considerable resources to remove HEU from some of these
countries, including Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Serbia, and the
Czech Republic, to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism. [31] 

The amendment also contains at least four loopholes under which
conversion of isotope production to LEU would be deemed
"unfeasible," so that HEU exports could continue: if producers
refuse to cooperate in testing LEU targets at their facilities;
if conversion would increase costs by more than 10 percent; if
the process of converting the facilities would temporarily
interrupt the supply of isotopes; or if the industry cannot
already satisfy the entire U.S. isotope requirement without HEU.
These provisions eliminate the incentives in the 1992 law for
producers to cooperate on conversion to LEU targets. 

The energy bill stalled in Congress in 2003 for reasons
unrelated to the HEU provision and was revived two years later
with the revised Burr amendment intact. But then, on June 23,
2005, in the first separate vote by either house on the
provision, the full Senate voted 52-46 to delete the Burr
amendment--the result of a bipartisan initiative sponsored by
Schumer and Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona. In the House,
which had already passed the energy bill without a separate vote
on the Burr provision, Republican Cong. Joe Barton of Texas, the
chair of the energy committee, likewise expressed concern and
worked with Democratic Cong. Ed Markey of Massachusetts to
develop a substitute amendment in the House-Senate conference to
restore the intent of the 1992 export restrictions. But Domenici
blocked this possibility and strong-armed his Republican Senate
conferees into supporting the Burr provision, against the
expressed vote of the Senate. [32] The energy bill, including
the Burr amendment, was passed by Congress on July 29, 2005, and
signed into law by President Bush on August 8. 

  
Exporting danger
 

Enactment of the Burr amendment threatens to undermine the
long-standing U.S. goal of phasing out commerce in bomb-grade
uranium, thereby undermining the war on terror. At a minimum,
the legislation will perpetuate U.S. HEU exports to Nordion.
Under the 1992 law, these exports were to terminate as soon as
Nordion could convert to LEU targets, or sooner if Nordion
refused to cooperate. Now, the United States will continue to
export approximately 20 kilograms of HEU to Nordion
annually--and, unless Nordion converts to LEU targets, that
amount will likely grow as the demand for medical isotopes
increases. 

The Burr amendment will also foster U.S. HEU exports to isotope
producers in Belgium and the Netherlands that previously were
ineligible because they refused to cooperate on conversion to
LEU targets. These companies had been expected to face strong
incentives to convert to LEU targets in the near future, as they
consumed their existing HEU stocks. But the Burr amendment has
removed the foreign companies' main incentive to convert because
they now qualify for U.S. HEU exports. As a result, U.S. exports
of bomb-grade uranium for isotope production could more than
double. [33] 

In addition, new isotope producers that had planned to use LEU
targets may now demand U.S. HEU exports on the grounds of
nondiscrimination, citing Burr's erosion of the norm against HEU
commerce. Similarly, operators of research reactors that have
converted, or are in the process of converting, their fuel from
HEU to LEU may reverse course and demand U.S. HEU exports. If
the United States refuses, these operators could seek HEU from
Russia, and Washington would have little ground to object, given
the precedent of the Burr amendment. 

All told, annual worldwide HEU commerce could increase by
several hundred kilograms--sufficient for multiple nuclear
weapons each year--and continue indefinitely instead of being
phased out as envisioned previously. [34] In light of the
relatively lax security at civilian nuclear facilities, the
technological ease of making a nuclear weapon with HEU, and the
expressed will of groups like Al Qaeda to acquire and use such
weapons, the specter of increasing HEU commerce raises grave
concerns. The extent of damage to U.S. interests will depend on
how Congress follows up this shameful performance. 

There are several plausible trajectories for U.S. policy on HEU
exports. The Burr amendment might be viewed as an acceptable but
singular exception to long-standing U.S. policy, derailing the
phaseout of such exports but only modestly increasing HEU
commerce for isotope production and associated risks of nuclear
terrorism and proliferation. More likely, however, if the Burr
amendment is permitted to stand, other current and potential HEU
users--including isotope producers outside of Canada and Europe,
and operators of high-power reactors worldwide--will seek and
win similar exemptions on the grounds that their operations are
neither less important nor more risky than those covered by the
Burr amendment. This outcome would erase much of the progress in
reducing global HEU commerce, magnifying the risks of nuclear
terrorism. 

To avoid this nightmare scenario, Congress should pursue two
remedies in its next session. The first is to repeal the Burr
amendment's waiver of HEU export restrictions, so that isotope
producers are forced to resume work on conversion to LEU targets
as a condition of receiving HEU exports in the interim.
Otherwise, as a senior Energy Department official warned last
summer, the Burr amendment may "undermine support of the U.S.
HEU minimization policy and nuclear export control system." [35] 

The second remedy is to create a domestic capacity to produce
medical isotopes using LEU. One option is the proven technology
of irradiating LEU targets in a research reactor, then
processing them to recover the isotopes. No new reactor would be
needed, because several are available at U.S. universities and
national labs, though it would be necessary to construct a
processing plant and deal with resulting radioactive waste. 

Alternately, the United States could embrace an innovative
technology being pursued by at least two U.S. companies, New
Mexico-based TCI Medical and Virginia-based BWXT, in which
isotopes are produced in the liquid core of a small reactor.
[36] Russia originally developed the technology with HEU but has
explored conversion to LEU, which would be used in any
prospective U.S. facility. Several of the small reactors would
need to be built, but the new technology is more efficient and
significantly reduces nuclear waste. Either or both of these
options could be facilitated by a few million dollars of
congressional seed money--a tiny price to block one of the most
vulnerable paths to nuclear terrorism. 

If the United States met its isotope needs with domestic
LEU-based production, current law would block HEU exports to
foreign isotope producers that refused to convert. Indeed, if
Congress pursued this path, foreign producers would race to
convert to LEU targets as soon as possible, to ensure their own
operations and to avert the creation of a U.S. competitor.
Either way, the United States could halt HEU exports for isotope
production, a major step toward its long-standing goal of ending
global commerce in bomb-grade uranium. [37]

1. U.S. Energy Department, "Remarks Prepared for Energy
Secretary Spencer Abraham," May 26, 2004.
 
2. See, for instance: "Statement from Sam Nunn, Co-Chairman of
the Nuclear Threat Initiative, Regarding the Global Threat
Reduction Initiative," Nuclear Threat Initiative, May 26, 2004.
 
3. On the creation of GTRI: Energy Department, "Department of
Energy Launches New Global Threat Reduction Initiative," May 26,
2004. 

4. Alan J. Kuperman, "Civilian Highly Enriched Uranium and the
Fissile Material Convention," in Paul L. Leventhal, ed., Nuclear
Power & the Spread of Nuclear Weapons (Dulles: Brassey's Inc.,
2002), pp. 249-260.
 
5. Andrew Bieniawski, U.S. Energy Department, "Overview of
GTRI," presented to the Twenty-Seventh Annual International
Meeting on Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors
(RERTR), November 7, 2005; Kasia Mendelsohn and John Pantaleo,
Energy Department, "Molybdenum-99 Production with LEU Targets,"
presented to the Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, the
National Academies, December 6, 2005.
 
6. Mendelsohn and Pantaleo, "Molybdenum-99 Production with LEU
Targets."
 
7. Ian MacLeod, "Area Firm 'A Terrorist Target'; MDS Nordion Has
Enough Enriched Uranium for a Bomb," Ottawa Citizen, June 9,
2002, p. A1. Also see Carey Sublette, "Nuclear Weapons
Frequently Asked Questions," February 20, 1999
(nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4.html). 

8. Personal communication with Frank von Hippel, professor of
public and international affairs, Princeton University. On
Canada's waste from processed targets, see: Donald Hart, Paul
McKee, and Chris Wren, Ecological Effects Review of Chalk River
Laboratories (Bramptron: EcoMetrix Inc., January 2005). The
amount of spent HEU from targets in Canada's radioactive waste
is estimated from the fact that it has been using 10 to 20
kilograms per year of HEU in targets for many years.
 
9. Mendelsohn and Pantaleo, "Molybdenum-99 Production with LEU
Targets."
 
10. Ibid.
 
11. Ibid.
 
12. On Nordion's pledge: J. B. Slater, general manager, Major
Facilities Business Centre Operations, Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited (AECL) Research, "The Program on Future HEU Supply for
AECL's Radioisotope Production Operation," submitted in support
of XSNM-02667, December 4, 1990
(nci.org/05nci/11/Full%20page%20fax%20print.pdf). On the
facility design: Daniel Horner, "Nordion Headed for 'Showdown'
with U.S.?" Nuclear Fuel, March 15, 2004, p. 1. See also, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, public meeting, transcript,
"Briefing on Proposed Export of High Enriched Uranium to
Canada," July 10, 2000
(www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/tr/2000/200007
10b.html).
 
13. On Canada's pledge: The diplomatic notes were exchanged
between the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the U.S.
Embassy in Canada on September 4, 1997. See NRC, Memorandum and
Order, CLI-99-20, June 29, 1999 (nci.org/n/nrc62999.txt). On
Nordion's slowness: Horner, "Nordion Headed for 'Showdown' with
U.S.?"
 
14. Horner, "Nordion Headed for 'Showdown' with U.S.?"
 
15. Daniel Horner and Rennie MacKenzie, "Nordion Still Facing
Technical, Commercial Hurdles on Isotope Work," Nuclear Fuel,
August 29, 2005, p. 3.
 
16. Jennifer Strom, "The Companies He Keeps," Independent
Weekly, July 7, 2004.
 
17. R. Jeffrey Smith, "Measure Would Alter Nuclear
Nonproliferation Policy," Washington Post, October 4, 2003, p.
A2.
 
18. Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment
Program, "Hot Waste, Cold Cash: Nuclear Industry PAC
Contributions to the Members of the 108th Congress," May 20,
2003.
 
19. Committee on Isotope Supply Member List
(nci.org/05nci/08/IndustryDocuments/LobbyingCoalitionforBurrAmend
ment.pdf).
 
20. "Addition of a New Section 4030 to Subtitle B of Title IV,"
March 12, 2003
(nci.org/05nci/08/IndustryDocuments/2003BurrAmendmentdraftedbyGla
sgow.htm). Microsoft Word document with Jameshys Glasgow's name
in properties section in author's possession.
 
21. On the committee's payment: The Center for Public Integrity
(publicintegrity.org/lobby/profile.aspx?act=firms&year=2003
&lo=L002898). On Alpine's donations: Information tabulated by
Union of Concerned Scientists based on data from the Center for
Responsive Politics
(nci.org/05nci/08/IndustryDocuments/UCS-LobbyistContributionstoKe
yLegislators.pdf). 

22. Committee on Isotope Supply Member List.
 
23. See letter from Carol S. Marcus, president of the California
chapter of the ACNP, to Sen. Barbara Boxer, March 25, 2003
(nci.org/05nci/08/IndustryDocuments/Lobbyletter
draftedbyAlpine-March2003.htm). Microsoft Word document with
Richard White's name in properties section in author's
possession.
 
24. Society of Nuclear Medicine, "Action Alert: Support HEU
Export for the Purpose of Medical Isotope Production," June 11,
2003 (interactive.snm.org/index.cfm?PageID=538&RPID=971). As of
January 2006, the three letters still could be downloaded, with
the properties sections revealing the Alpine Group's authorship.
 
25. A. A. Sameh, Radiochemical Centre Mallinckrodt Medical,
"Production of Fission Mo-99 from LEU Uranium Silicide Target
Materials," invited paper for 2000 Symposium on Isotope and
Radiation Applications, Institute of Nuclear Energy Research,
Taiwan, May 18-20, 2000. See also, Smith, "Measure Would Alter
Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy," and Daniel Horner, "Main
Barriers to LEU Conversion for Isotopes Not Technical, U.S.
Says," Nuclear Fuel, January 2, 2006, p. 3.
 
26. Smith, "Measure Would Alter Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy."
 
27. Congressional Record, June 23, 2005, pp. S7237-S7248. See
also, letter from Cong. Edward J. Markey to Energy Secretary
Samuel W. Bodman, June 14, 2005, citing a briefing by NRC
Commissioner Edward McGaffigan
(nci.org/05nci/08/OtherDocuments/Markey'sunansweredlettertoDOE-Ju
ne2005).
 
28. On peak capacity: "Production of Fission Radioisotopes in
the World," chart excerpted from Henri Bonet and Bernard David,
Institut National des Radio�l�ments (IRE), Belgium, "Production
of Mo-99 in Europe: Status and Perspectives," presented at Ninth
International Topical Meeting on Research Reactor Fuel
Management, April 2005
(nci.org/05nci/08/OtherDocuments/Noshortageofisotopeproductioncap
acity.pdf).
 
29. On Nordion's stockpile: MacLeod, "Area Firm 'A Terrorist
Target.'"
 
30. See Section 630 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed
by Congress (www.ne.doe.gov/EPAct2005/hr6_textconfrept.pdf), pp.
588-96.
 
31. U.S. Energy Department, "Highly Enriched Uranium Recovered
from Czech Technical University," September 27, 2005.
 
32. Personal communication with congressional staff, July 24,
2005.
 
33. Calculation based on the fact that two European isotope
producers (Mallinckrodt and IRE) together produce more
molybdenum 99 than Nordion and so may seek more HEU from the
United States than Nordion receives. In addition, worldwide
isotope production and associated HEU consumption are growing.
Bonet and David, "Production of Fission Radioisotopes in the
World."
 
34. For example, the United States might resume and perpetuate
HEU exports to European reactors that had been planning to
convert to LEU. According to the International Atomic Energy
Agency, "Management of High Enriched Uranium for Peaceful
Purposes: Status and Trends" IAEA-TECDOC-1452, June 2005: "For
the seven research reactors in the EU, the annual [fuel]
consumption is in the range of 170 kilograms HEU." If converted
reactors reverted to HEU as well, the annual consumption for
fuel would climb even higher. These amounts are in addition to
Europe's use of HEU for targets in isotope production, estimated
to be at least 20 kilograms per year and growing.
 
35. Letter from Paul M. Longsworth, deputy administrator for
defense nuclear nonproliferation, Energy Department, to Kurt
Gottfried, Union of Concerned Scientists, July 15, 2005
(nci.org/05nci/08/domenic04/DOELetter-July2005.gif). 

36. R. W. Brown, "The Radiopharmaceutical Industry's Effort to
Migrate Towards Mo-99 Production Utilizing LEU," presented to
the Twenty-Seventh Annual International Meeting on RERTR,
November 8, 2005. 

37. For further background documents, see
nci.org/news.htm#CHill. The author wishes to thank the Bulletin
editors and Paul Leventhal for their helpful comments on earlier
drafts. 


Alan J. Kuperman is an assistant professor at the LBJ School of
Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, and senior policy
analyst at the Nuclear Control Institute, Washington, D.C. He
worked as Charles E. Schumer's legislative director when the
Schumer amendment was enacted in 1992. This article is based on
a paper presented to the Twenty-Seventh Annual International
Meeting on Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors. 

March/April 2006 pp. 44-50 (vol. 62, no. 02) � 2006 Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists 

Copyright 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists               
*****************************************************************
 48 Las Vegas SUN: No Radiation From Japan Nuclear Waste Fire 

Today: March 22, 2006 at 8:56:35 PST 

By KOZO MIZOGUCHI ASSOCIATED PRESS 

TOKYO (AP) - 

A fire broke out at a nuclear power plant's waste incinerator in
western Japan on Wednesday, but officials said no radiation
leaked into the atmosphere. Two workers were injured. 

It took firefighters wearing protective suits nearly two hours
to reach the blaze because of thick smoke, and another two hours
to put out the flames at the facility in Oi, about 235 miles
west of Tokyo, said Manabu Kobana of Kansai Electric Power Co. 

Sensors inside and around the plant showed no signs of a
radiation leak, police said. All four pressurized water reactors
at Oi were operating normally, and workers at the plant reactors
remained at their stations during the fire. No one was
evacuated. 

"We don't believe the reactors were at any time exposed to
danger," Fukui police official Ritsuo Eto said. 

Two workers who were inspecting the facility were rushed to a
hospital after inhaling smoke, but they were not in critical
condition and were not exposed to radiation, fire officials
said. 

Resource-poor Japan is heavily dependent on its nuclear program,
but the public has been increasingly wary of reactor safety
following a series of malfunctions and accidents. 

The cause of Wednesday evening's blaze - located at the waste
incinerating facility between the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors - was
still under investigation. But flames seemed to have come from
an area in the facility where the ash from incinerated trash is
packed into steel barrels, Kobana said. 

The waste processed at the facility includes employee uniforms,
rags and other trash from the plant and may contain "minuscule"
levels of radiation, Kobana said. 

Japan's 55 nuclear reactors supply about one-third of the
country's electricity, according to the Natural Resources and
Energy Agency, though residents are wary of the plants' safety
record. 

In 2004, five workers were killed when a corroded pipe at a
reactor in western Japan ruptured and sprayed plant workers with
boiling water and steam in the country's worst-ever nuclear
plant accident. No radiation escaped from that reactor, which
has since resumed operations. 

In 1999, a radiation leak at a fuel-reprocessing plant northeast
of Tokyo killed two workers and triggered the evacuation of
thousands of residents. That accident was caused by two workers
who tried to save time by mixing excessive amounts of uranium in
buckets instead of using special mechanized tanks. 

The government has said it wants to build 11 new plants and
raise electricity output generated by nuclear power to nearly 40
percent of the national supply by 2010. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 49 GSPI: Proposal to drill near nuclear blast site concerns landowners

Glenwood Springs Post Independent - 

March 22, 2006

 Two landowners urged the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission Monday to deny a proposal to drill for natural gas
near a nuclear blast site.

Wesley Kent, who lives close to the Project Rulison blast, said
he'd take the commission to court if drilling unleashes
radiation left over from the blast.

"If something happens you'll all be (dragged) into court," he
said to the commission, which met in Glenwood Springs Monday.

Project Rulison, a joint operation of the Atomic Energy
Commission, Austral Oil and CER Geonuclear Corp., was an attempt
to free gas trapped in the tight sandstone of the Mesaverde
formation. 

On Sept. 10, 1969, at a site on the north slope of Battlement
Mesa about 12 miles southeast of Parachute, a 40-kiloton nuclear
explosive was detonated 8,476 feet below ground surface.

Presco Inc., of The Woodlands, Texas, proposes to drill within a
half-mile radius around the blast site. The area was established
by the COGCC in 2004. While the commission does not prohibit
drilling within that area, it does require companies to consult
with it before it will issue a permit to drill.

After the blast, the Department of Energy set aside 40 acres
around ground zero where drilling is prohibited.

Presco withdrew its drilling application earlier this month,
which was to be heard by the COGCC in its public meeting Monday.
Presco has said it will reapply for a drilling permit in about
six month's time.

The company is currently gathering information from experts that
it will present to the Garfield County Commissioners and the
COGCC. It will show that virtually all of the radioactivity from
the blast was dissipated when gas was flared from the well after
the blast over a 10-month period, the company has said.

"Does the country need the gas that bad that you would allow
them to drill there?" Kent asked the oil and gas commissioners.

Also worried about the possible fallout from gas drilling was
Cary Weldon, who owns the property where the blast took place.
Surrounded by a post and rail wooden fence, the site is now
marked by a small bronze plaque.

Weldon bought his property in 1976. 

"We had assurances from the Department of Energy that the site
was safe," he said. The DOE has tested his water and air quality
regularly since then, and none of the samples has showed
abnormal levels of radioactivity.

But he still worries.

The three elements of concern - tritium, krypton 85 and carbon
14, remnants of the nuclear blast - are all highly mobile in gas
and water, he said.

In a DOE report on the site closure, the DOE said "no proven and
cost-effective technology exists to remove radiation" below the
ground, Weldon said.

The DOE has also said it will conduct a computer modeling study
of the conditions in the blast cavity below ground to determine
just how much radiation still exists. That report is due out in
2011, Weldon said.

"I believe it would be irresponsible to issue a permit for
drilling prior to the completion of that report," he said.

He also urged the commission to impose a half-mile moratorium
area around ground zero.

Commission president Peter Mueller said the COGCC shares his
concern.

"It has to be safe. There's no compromise there. There will be
an extensive review (of Presco's application) and public
process," he said.

All contents � Copyright 2006 postindependent.com
Glenwood Springs Post Independent - 2014 Grand Avenue -
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-4162 			 		   	 
*****************************************************************
 50 Deseret News: New nuclear threat for Utah? 

[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 

Britain may be creating, testing weapon in West 

By Lee Davidson Deseret Morning News 

Amid press reports that Great Britain is secretly developing a 
new generation of nuclear warheads, activists fear that could 
lead to renewed nuclear testing in Nevada � upwind from Utah. 

['Photo'] Deseret Morning News graphic 

The Times of London reported last week that Britain has been 
hiring the best and brightest young physicists it can find to 
develop a new warhead to replace the aging ones now aboard its 
Trident submarines. 

The Times said that as part of such work, the British 
scientists conducted at the Nevada Test Site on Feb. 23 an 
underground "subcritical test," where no critical mass was 
formed and no nuclear reaction occurred. 

That test examined the behavior of plutonium as it was 
"strongly shocked by forces produced by chemical high 
explosives," according to a Nevada Test Site press release. When 
combined with analysis by supercomputers, it helps predict how 
warheads will perform. 

After the Times report, top British officials would 
neither confirm nor deny that they have a secret program to 
develop new warheads. 

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the BBC, "We 
are giving consideration to the development of a new system." 
When asked if a program is already under way to develop a 
successor to current Trident warheads, he said, "There is a 
discussion about whether we do." 

The British and U.S. governments have not acknowledged 
that the test last month in Nevada was part of a program to 
develop new nuclear arms, as reported by the Times. 

A Nevada Test Site press release said merely that the 
test, code-named "Krakatau," was to provide "crucial information 
to maintain the safety and reliability of each nation's nuclear 
weapons without having to conduct underground nuclear tests." 

Also, Kevin Rohrer, spokesman for the National nuclear 
Security Administration's Nevada Site, told the Deseret Morning 
News that nothing in the test was designed "to help develop a 
new weapon." 

But Steve Erickson, director of the Citizens Education 
Project in Utah and a longtime opponent of nuclear testing in 
Nevada, believes the British press reports � and is worried by 
them, and about U.K.-U.S. mutual defense agreements that allow 
testing in Nevada. 

"We have never fielded a brand-new design for a warhead 
without nuclear testing it first," Erickson said. 

"They've crossed a crucial threshold with that last 
test," Erickson added. "With it, we charge that they have moved 
into weapon development as opposed to stockpile sustainment. . . 
. Why are we doing this to help the British?" 

Erickson worries that underground nuclear tests could 
occur again, but not the open-air tests that led to cancer 
downwind in Utah. Congress later apologized for those tests and 
created a compensation fund for some downwind cancer victims. 

While underground tests are safer, they have been known 
to vent through the surface and spread radiation downwind. 

The Times of London, however, quoted unnamed British 
defense officials saying they figured they would need to develop 
new warheads without full nuclear testing because of the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. They said they instead likely 
would have to depend on "subcritical" tests coupled with 
analysis by supercomputers. 

The Times quoted one official saying, "We got to build 
something that we can never test and be absolutely confident 
that when we use it, it will work." 

The Times also reported that some critics in Britain 
charge that the program will breach the nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

� 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 			 		 		 		 		 [ 
*****************************************************************
 51 Las Vegas SUN: No plans for full-scale nuclear testing, official says in Nevada 

Today: March 22, 2006 at 11:47:2 PST 

ASSOCIATED PRESS 

NORTH LAS VEGAS, Nev. (AP) - Full-scale nuclear weapons testing
is not currently planned at the Nevada Test Site, but the Bush
administration intends to keep the option open, the nation's
nuclear security chief said. 

"It's very hard to see a future in which that would be either
necessary or wise or politically possible," Linton F. Brooks,
administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
said Tuesday of above- or below-ground detonations of nuclear
devices. 

But, "we don't want to close the door," Brooks said as he
explained the administration's unwillingness to seek
ratification of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on
nuclear arms. The U.S. has observed a moratorium on full-scale
nuclear testing since 1992, but has not ratified the treaty. 

Brooks said during a visit to the National Nuclear Security
Administration's Nevada Site Office in North Las Vegas that only
a major problem with the nuclear weapons stockpile would prompt
the resumption of full-scale testing at the vast test site
northwest of Las Vegas. From 1951 to 1992, the 1,375-square-mile
federal reservation hosted 928 full-scale nuclear tests
involving 1,021 nuclear detonations, including 100 atmospheric
tests. 

"You're certainly not going to see a return to testing for
developing new weapons," Brooks said. 

Brooks said that by 2012, the United States will have 1,700 to
2,200 deployed nuclear weapons and "a fairly large number of
non-deployed weapons" that he called both a hedge against a new
arms race with a new competitor and a hedge against technical
problems. 

"You keep two different warheads for ICBMs (Intercontinental
Ballistic Missiles) so that if one of them doesn't work you can
upload the rest," he said. 

--- 

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com 

                                 
         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 52 Hawk Eye: Funding fallout Congress should make sure nuclear-plant
workers don�t have another cross to carry. 

Sunday, March 19, 2006

It took years for workers sickened by exposure to cancer�causing
materials at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant to win some
compensation from the federal government. 

It took years for the government to even acknowledge workers'
life�shortening cancers were a result of their jobs building
warheads at the Middletown facility. 

Even after it became clear there was some federal liability, the
government created unnecessary road blocks in the workers'
effort to receive some financial payback for the sacrifices they
made in the defense of the country during the Cold War. 

Now the president would strip crucial funding from the
health�screening program for former nuclear workers so he can
fund a study of the genetic fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear
power plant accident of two decades ago. 

It's not just workers or survivors' relatives who should be
offended by the proposition that vital funding needed to screen
them for health�related problems associated with their work
would be redirected to somewhere else. 

Congress is holding hearings on the proposed $26.5 billion
Department of Energy budget. It originally included $16.5
million for the health�screening program, which determines
whether workers are eligible for $150,000 in compensation.
President Bush wants to cut funding to $12.3 million. The
Chernobyl study was a last�minute measure slipped into a bill
last year with no money attached. Those involved in that study
now want their funding, and the health�screening program is a
target. 

The Iowa Congressional delegation, especially Sen. Tom Harkin,
the strongest voice for compensation for sickened workers,
should stand united against any efforts to withdraw funds from
the screening account. 

Anything less and their strong rhetoric over the past several
years rings hallow. 

It was our government who made unwitting victims out of
nuclear�plant workers. They shouldn't continue to be victimized
by our government. Access to health�care and modest compensation
is a small price to pay for a life shortened. 

Congress should see to it that doesn't happen.   
  
The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 
� 1-800-397-1708 � FAX 319-754-6824 � webmaster@thehawkeye.com

*****************************************************************
 53 [NukeNet] High Levels of Radioactive Material in Water, Pro
 
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:39:39 -0800

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)


   See June 2005 article with the same NYTimes
using data from The National Academy Of Sciences"
to show that there is virtually no safe level  of
exposure to radiation. Why no mention of that and
only going to pro industry sources by the NYTimes
in today's [March 22, 2006] article?

   Dr. John Gofman on any amount of ionizing
radiation exposure potentially causing cancer can
be found at:
http://www.mothersalert.org/gofman.html

   The NYTimes should be called and asked to quote
Dr. Gofman and The National Academy Of Sciences
about this radioactive leak at Indian Point [and
all nuclear power facilities]. The NYTimes can be
reached at: 212-556-1234.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Radioactive-Water.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
High Levels of Radioactive Material in Water
   a..                E-Mail This
   b.. Printer-Friendly
   c.. Save Article



By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 22, 2006
Filed at 12:14 a.m. ET

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) -- High levels of a
radioactive material -- nearly three times the
amount permitted in drinking water -- were found
in groundwater near the Hudson River beneath a
nuclear plant, the owner said Tuesday.

The groundwater does not intersect drinking
supplies, and although the strontium-90 is
believed to have reached the Hudson it would be
safely diluted in the river, said Jim Steets,
spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast.

The strontium -- which in high doses can cause
cancer -- was found in a well dug in a search for
the source of a leak of radioactive water at the
Indian Point complex, about 30 miles north of New
York City.

The test well is among nine dug in an attempt to
pinpoint the leak. Contaminated water was first
found in August.

Entergy's finding matched tests by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission on the same sample, Steets
said.

The sample also yielded tritium, another potential
carcinogen, at levels well above the drinking
water standard. High levels had been found earlier
in another test well. The nuclear commission
announced Monday that it would investigate
releases of tritium at Indian Point and other
plants.

Neil Sheehan, a commission spokesman, said the
agency still believes the radioactivity -- given
that it is not in drinking water -- is well below
the level that would ''pose a risk to public
health and safety.''



   This is from the same NYTimes fron June 29, 2005
on even "very low doses of radiation" posing
cancer risks over a person's lifetime:


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Radiation-Risks.html?

Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer
   a..              E-Mail This
   b.. Printer-Friendly



By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 29, 2005
Filed at 11:13 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Even very low doses of
radiation pose a risk of cancer over a person's
lifetime, a National Academy of Sciences panel
concluded. It rejected some scientists' arguments
that tiny doses are harmless or may in fact be
beneficial.

The findings, disclosed in a report Wednesday,
could influence the maximum radiation levels that
are allowed at abandoned reactors and other
nuclear sites and raises warnings about excessive
exposure to radiation for medical purposes such as
repeated whole-body CT scans.

''It is unlikely that there is a threshold (of
radiation exposure) below which cancers are not
induced,'' the scientists said.

While at low doses ''the number of
radiation-induced cancers will be small ... as the
overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the
risk,'' the experts said.

Even common X-rays pose some risk of adverse
health effects, the scientists found, although the
panel said there was not enough information
available to accurately estimate the cancer risk
from X-rays. Nevertheless, the report said, there
is evidence that per unit of absorbed radiation,
X-rays may be more dangerous than other radiation.

The panel also said that approximately one person
out of 1,000 would develop cancer from exposure to
the amount of radiation from a single, average
whole body CT-scan.

But the report should not scare people away from
nuclear medicine, said Dr. Henry Royal, a
professor of radiology at Washington University in
St. Louis. He said most often the benefits of such
tests and treatments outweigh the risks.

But Royal also said that procedures such as CT
scans should be used to deal with a specific
medical problems and not part of annual medical
screenings. ''You should not be exposed to
radiation for superficial reasons,'' Royal said in
a telephone interview.

Scientists for years have debated how extremely
low doses of radiation affect human health.

Pro-nuclear advocates, as well as some independent
scientists, have maintained that the current risk
models for low-level radiation has produced more
stringent requirements than is necessary to
protect public health.

It is an issue in determining decontamination
requirements at abandoned reactors and at federal
weapons sites.

The academy's panel stood by the ''linear, no
threshold'' model that generally is the acceptable
approach to radiation risk assessment. This
approach assumes that the health risks from
radiation exposure decline as the dose levels
drop, but that each unit of radiation -- no matter
how small -- is assumed to cause cancer.

''The scientific research base shows that there is
no threshold of exposure below which low levels of
ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be
harmless or beneficial,'' said Richard R. Monson,
the panel's chairman. He is a professor of
epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health.

The panel said new and more extensive data
developed over the past 15 years only strengthen
the conclusions of the panel's last report, in
1990, on low-level radiation risks.

The scientists estimated that one out of 100
people exposed to 100 millisievert of radiation
over a lifetime probably would develop solid
cancer or leukemia, and that half of those cases
would be fatal.

It also said that 42 additional cancers can be
expected in the same group from other than
low-level radiation sources.

A millisievert is a measurement of radiation
energy deposited in a living tissue. People absorb
about 3 millisievert of radiation annually from
natural sources and 0.1 millisievert every time
they get a chest X-ray.

The report noted that exposure from a whole body
CT scan is about 10 millisievert, much higher than
a normal X-ray.

Some anti-nuclear advocates said the study
reaffirms that stringent regulations are needed
when cleaning up abandoned nuclear sites or
considering health risks near nuclear power
plants.

''The NAS panel puts to rest once and for all
claims that low doses of radiation aren't
dangerous ... nuclear advocates have been making
this claim for years'' said Daniel Hirsch,
president of Committee to Bridge the Gap, a Los
Angeles-based nuclear watchdog group.

Mitchell Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear
Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying arm,
said the report ''is a positive finding. It shows
there is very little risk of exposure from low
levels of radiation.''

The academy is a private organization chartered by
Congress to advise the government of scientific
matters.

^------

On the Net:

National Academy of Science:
http://www.nationalacademies.org



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 54 Guardian Unlimited: High Levels of Radioactive Material in Water
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Wednesday March 22, 2006 5:16 AM

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) - High levels of a radioactive material
- nearly three times the amount permitted in drinking water -
were found in groundwater near the Hudson River beneath a
nuclear plant, the owner said Tuesday. 

The groundwater does not intersect drinking supplies, and
although the strontium-90 is believed to have reached the Hudson
it would be safely diluted in the river, said Jim Steets,
spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast. 

The strontium - which in high doses can cause cancer - was found
in a well dug in a search for the source of a leak of
radioactive water at the Indian Point complex, about 30 miles
north of New York City. 

The test well is among nine dug in an attempt to pinpoint the
leak. Contaminated water was first found in August. 

Entergy's finding matched tests by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission on the same sample, Steets said. 

The sample also yielded tritium, another potential carcinogen,
at levels well above the drinking water standard. High levels
had been found earlier in another test well. The nuclear
commission announced Monday that it would investigate releases
of tritium at Indian Point and other plants. 

Neil Sheehan, a commission spokesman, said the agency still
believes the radioactivity - given that it is not in drinking
water - is well below the level that would ``pose a risk to
public health and safety.'' 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 55 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast health survey extended

03/22/2006 | 

 DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer 

TALLEVAST - A Tallevast community health survey has been
extended through Thursday to allow more former workers and
current and past residents to participate. 

The confidential survey is being conducted by the Institute of
Public Health of Florida A&M University and Manatee County Rural
Health. Its purpose is to document the health concerns of the
community and former workers who have lived and worked in and
around the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant at 1600
Tallevast Road. 

A past leak in a broken sump at the plant has been identified as
the source of a plume of underground contamination spreading
across 131 acres. 

Participants do not need to put their name or any indentifying
information on the survey form. 

The survey will be conducted from 2-8 p.m. today at Mt. Tabor
Missionary Baptist Church, 1703 Tallevast Road. 

For more information, contact Laura Ward at 355-9216 or 742-0810
or email at La1Law@aol.comor Wanda Washington, 351-2969 or
807-5640 or e-mail at WashingtonWD@aol.com.

*****************************************************************
 56 Mississauga News: City Hall hosts nuclear waste talk 

The Mississauga News Mar 22, 2006 

The Sierra Club of Canada, Peel Region Group, is hosting an
event tonight to educate Mississauga residents about the health
and safety risks associated with a low-level nuclear waste
incinerator proposed for Brampton. 

The talk is called: "Nuclear Waste in Peel: What will it mean
for Mississauga?" and features Ed Schmeler and Norman Gillon
from the Coalition for a Nuclear Free Peel. 

The presentation begins at 7 p.m. at City Hall in Committee Room
A.

 In July of 2005, Mississauga Metals &Alloys announced its
intention to construct an incinerator at its facility near
Malton. The company's proposals call for up to 50,000 tonnes of
radioactive/ non-radioactive waste to be trucked in and out of
Peel each year. The Coalition for a Nuclear Free Peel was formed
to halt the project.

 "Of course, radioactive pollution will not magically stop at
the borders of Brampton," said Schmeler. "Highway accidents
involving trucks transporting nuclear waste have occurred in
other areas, and are equally likely to occur here. This talk
will centre on where we're coming from, and what we've done so
far."     

*****************************************************************
 57 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada files new federal lawsuit in Yucca Mountain fight 

Today: March 22, 2006 at 17:7:27 PST 

By KEN RITTER ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Nevada filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing the
federal Energy Department of withholding documents that state
officials say will show the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
repository can't be built safely. 

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Reno, is the
fourth federal lawsuit the state has pending against the plan to
bury 77,000 tons of the nation's radioactive waste in Nevada. 

The suit seeks the release of a 2004 draft application prepared
by contractors for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to
open the repository. 

"The federal government is required by law to share its
important Yucca information with the host state, and we are
entitled to such information under the Freedom of Information
Act as well," Nevada Attorney General George Chanos said in a
statement. "But DOE has refused to provide Nevada with this most
important document." 

An Energy Department spokesman in Washington, D.C., said the
agency has made public on an Internet network "millions of pages
of information" about the Yucca Mountain project, but was under
no legal obligation to release its draft license application. 

"Once the license application is submitted to the (Nuclear
Regulatory Commission), it will be made public," spokesman Craig
Stevens said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press. 

"This department and this administration remain committed to the
licensing, construction, and operation of Yucca Mountain as the
nation's permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel,"
Stevens said. "This lawsuit will not deter us." 

The state's three-page complaint lists measures that Chanos said
Nevada has taken to secure the draft license application,
including requests by Gov. Kenny Guinn to the secretary of
energy and to President Bush; subpoenaed demands from Rep. Jon
Porter, R-Nev.; litigation before the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission licensing hearing board; a Freedom of Information Act
request; and Energy Department administrative appeals. 

All those requests were rebuffed, Chanos said. 

"What are they trying to hide?" he said. "If the repository is
safe, you'd think they'd be anxious to prove it." 

Bob Loux, chief of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects and
administrator of the state fight against the repository, said
the state believes the document will show that the repository
cannot meet Environmental Protection Agency radiation safety
standards. 

The Energy Department had planned to open the repository by
2010. But it missed a self-imposed deadline to apply for a
license by the end of 2004, and licensing hearings are expected
to take several years. 

Last week, the acting director of the Energy Department's Office
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management that oversees the
project said the site should open in the next decade. 

The process has been stalled by budget shortages, opposition by
Nevada lawmakers including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a
controversy over whether scientists falsified quality assurance
data and by a court-ordered rewrite of EPA radiation standards. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
which ordered stricter standards, also heard oral arguments last
October and is expected to rule soon on a state claim that the
Energy Department overstepped its authority, violated
environmental rules and needs to rewrite its plan for shipping
nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. 

Nevada also has asked the court to review Nuclear Regulatory
Commission rulings, and another lawsuit is pending in U.S.
District Court in Las Vegas that would deny state groundwater
supplies to the arid desert site, 90 miles northwest of Las
Vegas. 

--- 

On the Net: 

Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov 

Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects:
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste 

 Las Vegas SUN main page
*****************************************************************
 58 Knox News: Munger: Court of national security not easy place for a hearing

By FRANK MUNGER, NEWS SENTINEL 
                                
March 22, 2006                                                          

Sitting where I sit, I get to hear a lot of complaints about the 
government's Oak Ridge facilities. 

Thousands of people work at these plants, and because of the 
high-security environment, they have to put up with a lot of -- 
stuff: searches, body scans, rules on top of rules, and lots and 
lots of questions. 

Over the years, I've probably talked to dozens of people who have 
been fired, usually for safety or security infractions, and most 
of them felt like they had been wronged in some way or another. 

There's no question that the number of firings has been on the
increase in recent years. That's especially the case at BWXT,
the contractor that manages the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant --
although Oak Ridge officials won't provide numbers or details of
these involuntary departures. 

Former Y-12 general manager Dennis Ruddy, who himself was
relieved of his position last fall, apparently for violating
guidelines for classified information, once said that most
firings take place when employees don't tell the truth. 

Ruddy didn't really explain that, but he alluded to situations
where workers caught doing a no-no try to lie their way out of
it. At a high-stakes nuclear facility where the nation's
security is one of the missions, honesty is considered a big
deal. 

I remember talking to a woman who was fired after she
inadvertently took her cell phone into an area of Y-12 where
phones and other electronic devices are strictly forbidden. She
acknowledged that she might have saved her job if she had
reported the problem as soon as she realized the mistake.
Instead, she got caught with the phone as she exited the
exclusion zone. 

There's not a lot of tolerance for violations at Y-12, and there
apparently isn't much of an appeals process for those who
disagree with the findings or contest their firings. 

David Swenson's case stands out, if for no other reason than his
absolute persistence. 

The radiological controls supervisor was terminated in late
2002. He said he was falsely accused of breaching computer
security at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant. He insists he did
nothing wrong. 

Swenson, now 62, had worked at Y-12 for more than 25 years. He
had a "Q" security clearance, with access to the warhead plant's
most sensitive production and storage areas. 

BWXT reportedly fired Swenson for downloading pornography from
Internet sites. He said he didn't do it. He said he didn't look
at sex sites. He said he rarely used the computer and didn't
even have the skills to do what he was accused of doing. 

He said somebody must have stolen his password or misused his
computer's IP number, although he's not sure how or why. 

Swenson said his situation could be indicative of a computer
security problem at Y-12 but not one of his doing. 

Fortunately for Swenson, he had the necessary "points" (age plus
years of service) to retire from Y-12. He was able to leave the
plant with a full benefits package, even if it wasn't maximized
in the way he had planned. 

That's what is interesting about his case. 

Many people would have gone quietly into retirement, making the
best of a painful and difficult situation. But Swenson is still
trying to clear his name more than three years after he was
ignominiously escorted out of the plant. 

He said he offered to take a polygraph at the time. He said that
offer still stands. 

Swenson said he's not perfect. He admitted some embarrassing
things, including marital infidelity, which he suggested could
have played a role in what happened at his workplace. But he
swears he did not breach security at Y-12 or download
pornography at his computer. 

If Swenson was telling the truth, how would he prove it --
especially when pitted against the protective walls of national
security and the resources of the federal government? He
apparently approached lawyers about tackling his case, without
success. 

He and his wife came to the News Sentinel, hoping that a
newspaper investigation might exonerate him from the accusations
made again him. 

But gathering information on these cases, arriving at the truth,
is all but impossible. 

Personnel records are private, virtually inaccessible, and
security officers at nuclear weapons facilities don't typically
share their findings or discuss actions taken to protect the
nation's good. 

What to do? I don't know.

� 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 59 DOE: DOE Initiates Environmental Impact Statement for Global Nuclear 
Energy Partnership Technology Demonstrations
 
  March 22, 2006
 
WASHINGTON , DC  The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today
announced plans to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for the technology demonstration program of the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) initiative.   

DOE issued in the Federal Register today an Advance Notice of 
Intent to prepare an EIS for the GNEP technology demonstration 
program and plans to issue the final Notice of Intent in summer 
2006.  The advance notice requests comments from the public and 
private sectors on the scope of the EIS, reasonable alternatives, 
and other relevant information.   

The EIS will inform DOE officials and the public of the potential 
environmental impacts associated with the program to develop and 
demonstrate advanced technologies to safely recycle spent nuclear 
fuel using more proliferation-resistant processes.  The EIS will 
evaluate all reasonable alternative technologies as well as 
locations where the key elements of the technology program will 
be performed. DOE is requesting comments on the Advance Notice of 
Intent by May 8, 2006.  

When the final notice is issued, DOE will announce a schedule of 
public scoping meetings in various locations to assist the 
department in further defining the scope of the EIS and 
identifying significant issues.   

GNEP, which is part of President Bushs Advanced Energy 
Initiative, is a comprehensive strategy to increase U.S. and 
global energy security, encourage clean development around the 
world, reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation, and improve the 
environment.  

Accelerating the development and demonstration of new 
technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel is a key aspect of 
the program.   

On March 17, 2006, the department announced that it is seeking 
expressions of interest from the public and private sectors by 
March 31, 2006, to propose and evaluate sites suitable for 
demonstrating the new GNEP technologies.  

The department will issue a Request for Proposals later this 
spring and award contacts this summer to prepare site evaluation 
studies for locating engineering scale demonstrations of the 
departments advanced recycling technologies.  The results of 
these studies will provide information for the development of the 
environmental impact statement.   

Additional information on the advance notice of intent, the 
request for expressions of interest, and the GNEP program as a 
whole may be found on the Departments web site and 
http://www.gnep.energy.gov/ .    

Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | 
*****************************************************************
 60 Hanford News: Construction boon to Tri-Cities
 
This story was published Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006 

By Jeff St. John, Herald staff writer 

Booming construction employment managed to keep the Tri-City
economy growing in February, buoying an employment market that's
been hit hard by Hanford layoffs. 

Even so, the Tri-Cities barely broke even with 85,900 nonfarm
jobs in February, only 100 more than in the same month last
year, according to data released Tuesday by the Washington state
Employment Security Department. 

With more than 1,760 people laid off from the Bechtel National
vitrification plant project since last February, it's a good
thing commercial, residential and highway construction has been
as busy as it is, said Dean Schau, state labor economist for the
Tri-City region. 

"The best way to characterize the economy right now is almost
flat," he said. 

Increases in food processing, transportation and warehousing,
retail trade, finance and real estate jobs have helped to
balance out Hanford job losses, he said. Likewise, the loss of
about 100 federal government jobs has been balanced out by
growth with municipal governments and school districts, he said. 

Still, Hanford related layoffs, combined with seasonal low
points for farm and food processing work, pushed the Tri-City
unemployment rate to 7.5 percent in February. 

Given the statewide unemployment rate of 5.6 percent, it's clear
that the Tri-Cities is inching closer to the back of the pack
among the state's largest cities when it comes to economic
growth, Schau said. 

"I think that's an indication of the situation we're going
through, digesting the Hanford layoffs," he said. 

But despite that, construction continued to boom in the
Tri-Cities. In fact, the 6,100 construction jobs recorded in the
Tri-Cities in February - 500 more than in the same month last
year - represents the highest of any month in the last 25 years,
he said. 

"What I find ironic is that we're having a peak in construction
at the same time it's becoming clear the Tri-Cities (economy) is
moving into more of a transitional mode," he said. 

But you couldn't tell that from looking over the list of jobs
open for bid at the Tri-City Construction Council in Kennewick. 

"We've been busy all through the winter," said Jamie Lennick,
council manager. "It's been a good year for commercial
projects." 

And each project helps spread the wealth among a slew of
subcontractors, said Bill Holstein, project manager for
Chervenell Construction Co. in Kennewick. 

Among the projects Chervenell is working on are the new Yoke's
Fresh Market in West Richland and the Col Solare winery Ste.
Michelle Wine Estates is building on Red Mountain near Benton
City. 

While Chervenell has about 15 full-time employees, each of those
projects employs between 30 and 40 people on any given day,
Holstein said. 

With retail and commercial space filling up as fast as it can be
built, he sees a lot more room for contractors to find work. 

"Even the old Wal-Mart is being filled," he said, noting the
long-abandoned store on Canal Drive in Kennewick now is home to
a 150-employee Amazon.com call center and the future home of a
50-employee G.I. Joe's sporting goods and activewear store. 

Because of that, "Any new businesses moving into the area will
require a new building - and most of them are between $2 million
to $3 million on the low end." 

Jack Lynch, engineer with Ray Poland &Sons in Kennewick, said
that bids are out on the Lowe's home improvement store set to be
built on Road 68 in Pasco, next to the 12-plex theater being
built by Moses Lake-based Fairchild Cinemas. 

"We're also working on a winery - I don't know which one," Lynch
said. "We're bidding on so many jobs." 

Lynch and Holstein noted the boom in wine-related construction,
with Red Mountain the most obvious site for an explosion in new
tasting rooms and winemaking facilities. 

That's noteworthy, given that grape growing and wine production
have become big employers in Benton and Franklin counties, with
about 1,500 workers during the seasonal hiring peak last
September, Schau said. 

Wine-related jobs are among the range of farm jobs that began to
see seasonal growth in February. The number of farm jobs in
Benton and Franklin counties rose to 6,800 last month, up from
the January seasonal nadir of 5,400 and almost as many as the
6,900 jobs in February 2005, he said. 

Unemployment claims in the two counties also fell seasonally to
4,130 in February, down from 5,420 in January, he said. 

But that's still more unemployed people than the 3,535 recorded
in February 2005, before the Hanford layoffs began in earnest. 

February jobless rates in other areas of the state were:
Bellingham, 5 percent; Bremerton, 5.4 percent; Longview, 7.1
percent; Olympia, 5 percent; Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, 4.5
percent; Spokane, 6.1; Tacoma, 5.9; Wenatchee, 6.7 percent; and
Yakima, 9. 

� 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 61 Hanford News: Public sounds off on study
 
This story was published Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

SEATTLE - Thoroughly empty Hanford's tanks of radioactive waste.
Clean up the ground water beneath the nuclear reservation. And
prepare a good analysis of the dangers of moving nuclear waste
across the region's roads, said Seattle-area residents at a
Tuesday public hearing. 

"Clean it up. Clean it all up," said David Ortman of Seattle. 

The meeting was the first in a series of four this month to hear
public comment on what the Department of Energy should include
in what it is calling a "mega" environmental study. 

DOE is rolling three studies into one. It will include how much
radioactive waste to empty from Hanford's underground tanks, how
to treat the waste and how to close the tanks. It also will
cover disposing of some radioactive and hazardous chemical waste
at Hanford and elsewhere. Added most recently to the study was
the demolition of Hanford's research reactor, the Fast Flux Test
Facility, and how much waste that would create. 

What the three projects have in common is permanent disposal of
waste in central Hanford and the potential effects on ground
water there. 

"It's in all our interest to have a well thought out and
thorough environmental impact statement," said Jeff Lyon of the
Washington State Department of Ecology, which is providing
advice and assistance to DOE on the study. 

The subject was serious, but the crowd of about 50 began
clapping as soon as the Raging Grannies of Seattle took the
microphone. 

The women, dressed in aprons and carrying brooms, have become an
institution at Seattle meetings about the cleanup of waste at
Hanford from the past production of plutonium for the nation's
nuclear weapons program. 

"Uphold the Tri-Party Agreement. 

"Protect the Columbia's fish. 

"We don't want radioactive salmon 

"To be served up to us on our dish," the three grannies sang to
the tune of My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean. 

Several speakers criticized the analysis of shipping radioactive
waste included in an earlier waste disposal study that is being
redone after the state of Washington challenged the study's
adequacy in federal court. 

DOE would like to ship some radioactive waste from other sites
across the nation to Hanford to store or permanently bury. It
also plans to ship some Hanford waste elsewhere, including
glassified high-level radioactive waste to a proposed federal
repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. 

The transportation analysis for the earlier study assumed the
Northwest had stable weather conditions and that no one would be
within 100 meters of a truck carrying the waste in the event of
an accident or terrorist attack, said Rebecca Sayre of Heart of
America Northwest, an environmental group. 

"That's ludicrous," she said. 

"What I would like to see happen is a more far-sighted
approach," said Suzanne Chilcote. "Yucca Mountain may never
happen. We need to have a backup plan in place." 

Callie Ridolfi of Mercer Island said she was concerned the study
will not look at treatment alternatives for ground water that
already is contaminated. Chromium and uranium already are
reaching the Columbia River, she said. 

DOE is considering several alternatives for the tank waste
portion of the study, including one alternative that would show
what would happen if 10 percent of about 53 million gallons of
radioactive and hazardous chemical waste is left in the tanks.
The tanks have leaked an estimated 1 million gallons of waste
into the ground in the past. 

"We are talking about leaving large amounts of waste to drift
into the river, to find its way into the air, to be dug up by
critters," said Tom Carpenter of the Government Accountability
Project. 

He also criticized DOE's proposals to import radioactive waste
to Hanford. In November 2004 about 70 percent of voters in a
state election said they did not want more waste brought to
Hanford until waste already there is cleaned up, he pointed out. 

DOE challenged the constitutionality of Initiative 297 and the
court has yet to rule on whether the state may bar the waste
shipments. 

More meetings on the environmental study will be today in
Portland, Thursday in Hood River and March 28 in Pasco at 7 p.m.
at TRAC, 6600 Burden Blvd. Comments also may be mailed to Mary
Burandt, DOE, P.O. Box 450, H6-60, Richland, WA 99352. 

� 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 62 DOE: Advance Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact 
 
                         FR Doc E6-4162 
[Federal Register: March 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 55)] 
[Notices] [Page 14505-14507] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22mr06-58]                         
 
Statement for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Technology 
Demonstration Program AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Advance notice of intent.
 
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is providing this 
Advance Notice of Intent (ANOI) to prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 
(GNEP) Technology Demonstration Program. The GNEP Technology 
Demonstration Program would demonstrate certain technologies that 
could change the way spent nuclear fuel from commercial 
light-water nuclear power reactors is managed. This EIS will 
inform DOE officials and the public of the potential 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, which 
is to demonstrate U.S. capability to safely recycle spent nuclear 
fuel using proliferation-resistant separation processes and the 
conversion of transuranics into shorter-lived radioisotopes.
 
The proposed action includes three key elements that would 
comprise a proliferation-resistant closed fuel cycle: (1) The 
demonstration of separation processes in which usable and waste 
materials that are found in spent nuclear fuel are separated; (2) 
the demonstration of the conversion of transuranics; and (3) the 
demonstration of an advanced fuel fabrication process.
 
The EIS will evaluate all reasonable alternative technologies and 
locations for the key elements of the proposed GNEP Technology 
Demonstration Program. New facilities and
 
[[Page 14506]] modifications to existing facilities might be 
required for the Technology Demonstration Program. The EIS will 
address siting, construction or modification, and operation of 
these facilities.
 
DOE is issuing this ANOI, pursuant to its NEPA regulations at 10 
CFR 1021.311(b), to inform and request early comments from 
Federal agencies, state and local governments, Native American 
tribes, industry, other organizations, and members of the public 
regarding the proposed action, the reasonable alternatives, and 
the potential environmental impacts.
 
 
DATES: DOE invites comments on this ANOI through May 8, 2006.
 
DOE will consider comments received after May 8, 2006 to the 
extent practicable. DOE intends to issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) 
for the EIS later this year. After the NOI is issued, DOE will 
conduct public scoping meetings to assist in further defining the 
scope of the EIS and to identify significant issues to be 
addressed. The dates and locations of scoping meetings will be 
announced in the NOI, subsequent Federal Register notices (as 
needed), and in local media.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Please direct comments, suggestions, or relevant 
information on the planned EIS and questions concerning the 
proposed action to: Timothy A. Frazier, NEPA Document Manager, 
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Department 
of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0119, Telephone: 866-645-7803, Fax: 866-645-7807, E-mail 
to: .
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request further information 
about the EIS or to be placed on the EIS distribution list, use 
any of the methods listed under ADDRESSES above. Supplementary 
information on GNEP and the proposed GNEP Technology 
Demonstration Program may be found at .
 
For general information concerning the DOE NEPA process, contact: 
Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 
(EH- 42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119; telephone: 202-586-4600, or leave 
a message at 1-800-472-2756; fax: 202-586-7031; or send an e-mail 
to .
 
This ANOI will be available on the Internet at  and .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background As part of President Bush's 
Advanced Energy Initiative, DOE has launched a new initiative, 
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The broad goals of 
GNEP are to: (1) Reduce the United States' dependence on foreign 
sources of fossil fuels and encourage economic growth, while 
meeting increasing demand for electricity without emitting air 
pollution and greenhouse gases; (2) recycle nuclear fuel using 
new proliferation-resistant technologies to recover more energy 
and reduce the volume of waste; (3) encourage prosperity growth 
and clean development around the world; and (4) utilize the 
latest technologies to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation 
worldwide.
 
The proposed GNEP Technology Demonstration Program would involve 
the development of technologies to promote GNEP's goals. The GNEP 
Technology Demonstration Program would demonstrate technologies 
needed to implement a closed fuel cycle that enables recycling 
and consumption of spent nuclear fuel in a 
proliferation-resistant manner. While DOE has had some success at 
bench-scale testing of these technologies, it has not yet proven 
that these technologies will be feasible in demonstration-scale 
facilities.
 
The proposed GNEP Technology Demonstration Program includes three 
major projects that would be conducted in new or existing 
facilities. These projects would demonstrate: (1) 
Proliferation-resistant processes that would separate the usable 
elements in commercial spent nuclear fuel from its waste 
elements; (2) the conversion of transuranics into shorter-lived 
radioisotopes; and (3) operation of an advanced fuel fabrication 
facility. The GNEP Technology Demonstration Program EIS will 
address siting, construction or modification, and operation of 
these demonstration-scale facilities. (Decontamination and 
decommissioning of these facilities will be addressed in one or 
more future NEPA analyses.) In addition, DOE anticipates 
preparing a separate NEPA analysis at a later date that would 
address the environmental impacts of potential future actions to 
encourage the commercial-scale adoption of these technologies for 
the management of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear 
power reactors, as well as alternatives. At that time, DOE 
anticipates preparing a programmatic EIS that would address the 
potential environmental consequences of the widespread deployment 
of proliferation-resistant spent nuclear fuel separation 
technologies, technologies that consume transuranics while 
extracting their energy, and fuel fabrication technologies, 
including those technologies that are the subject of the 
Technology Demonstration Program.
 
As discussed above, the GNEP Technology Demonstration Program 
includes three major projects.
 
1. Demonstration of an Advanced Separation Process Under the GNEP 
Technology Demonstration Program, DOE would demonstrate the 
capability to safely recycle spent nuclear fuel from commercial 
light-water nuclear power reactors using proliferation- resistant 
separation processes. In support of this effort, DOE would 
conduct demonstration-scale testing of a process that would 
separate the usable elements in spent commercial nuclear fuel 
from its waste elements.
 
Spent nuclear fuel contains uranium, transuranics (plutonium and 
other long-lived radioactive material), and fission products.
 
The fission products are waste and make up less than five percent 
of the used fuel. The buildup of the fission products inhibits 
the nuclear fission reaction, so used fuel must be removed from a 
nuclear power plant. In order to consume transuranics and 
uranium, while recovering their energy content, the transuranics 
and uranium would be separated from the fission products and then 
fabricated into new fuel.
 
The GNEP Technology Demonstration Program would use advanced 
separation processes (such as, but not necessarily limited to, 
Uranium Extraction Plus, or UREX+). As discussed below, the 
products of these advanced separation processes can be used in a 
facility such as a fast reactor that would consume transuranics 
to produce energy.
 
2. Demonstration of the Conversion of Transuranics DOE would 
demonstrate the destruction of transuranics separated from spent 
nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants. To destroy the 
transuranics, DOE would take advantage of high-energy neutrons to 
fission, or split apart, long-lived transuranics and transmute, 
or convert, them into shorter-lived radioisotopes.
 
DOE will consider a facility such as, but not necessarily limited 
to, a fast reactor as a source of high-energy neutrons. As 
transuranics are consumed, significant energy is released and can 
be converted into electricity, thereby producing useful energy 
from material that would otherwise be waste.
 
 
[[Page 14507]] 3. Demonstration of a Proliferation-Resistant Fuel 
Cycle and Advanced Fuel Fabrication DOE would demonstrate the 
fabrication, testing, and qualification of advanced fuel forms in 
a multi-hot cell, multi-purpose research, development, and 
demonstration laboratory that can serve fuel cycle testing needs. 
The facility would use modular, flexible construction 
technologies with the near-term objective to fabricate and 
qualify fuels to be used in the facility for the conversion of 
transuranics.
 
Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of the GNEP Technology 
Demonstration Program is to demonstrate U.S. capability to safely 
recycle spent nuclear fuel using proliferation-resistant 
separation processes and the conversion of transuranics into 
shorter-lived radioisotopes. DOE needs to identify and 
demonstrate technologies and identify the locations where those 
technologies would be demonstrated.
 
Potential Range of Alternatives As part of the NEPA process, DOE 
will consider and evaluate all reasonable alternatives, including 
those identified in response to the ANOI, NOI, and during the 
public scoping process. DOE will also evaluate a No Action 
alternative.
 
Invitation To Comment DOE invites Federal agencies, state and 
local governments, Native American tribes, industry, other 
organizations, and members of the public to provide comments on 
the proposed scope, alternatives (both technology and siting), 
and environmental issues to be analyzed in the forthcoming EIS 
for the GNEP Technology Demonstration Program.
 
DOE will consider all such comments and other relevant 
information in developing an NOI. Comments on this ANOI should be 
submitted as described under DATES and ADDRESSES above.
 
Potential Environmental Issues for Analysis DOE has tentatively 
identified the following environmental issues for analysis in the 
GNEP Technology Demonstration Program EIS.
 
The list is presented to facilitate early comment on the scope of 
the EIS; it is not intended to be comprehensive nor to 
predetermine the alternatives to be analyzed or their potential 
impacts.
 
Potential impacts to the general population and workers from 
radiological and nonradiological releases.
 
Potential impacts of emissions on air and water quality.
 
Potential impacts on flora and fauna of a region.
 
Potential transportation impacts from the shipment of radioactive 
materials and waste.
 
Potential impacts from postulated accidents.
 
Potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on 
low-income and minority populations (environmental justice).
 
Potential Native American concerns.
 
Short-term and long-term land use impacts.
 
Compliance with applicable Federal and state regulations.
 
Long-term health and environmental impacts.
 
Long-term site suitability.
 
NEPA Process DOE plans to publish the NOI for the proposed GNEP 
Technology Demonstration Program EIS in the Federal Register 
later this year. The NOI will identify the technologies and sites 
that DOE proposes to evaluate as reasonable alternatives in the 
EIS. Following the publication of the NOI, there will be a 60-day 
public scoping period. Subsequently, DOE will announce the 
availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register and other 
media outlets. Federal agencies, state and local governments, 
Native American tribes, industry, other organizations, and 
members of the public will have an opportunity to submit 
comments. These comments will be considered and addressed in the 
Final EIS. DOE will issue a Record of Decision(s) no sooner than 
30 days after publication of the Environmental Protection 
Agency's Notice of Availability of the Final EIS. DOE might 
announce its decision to implement all three projects in a single 
Record of Decision or in separate Records of Decision.
 
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 16, 2006.
 
C. Russell H. Shearer, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Environment, Safety and Health.
 
[FR Doc. E6-4162 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 63 Times-News Online: Federal, state agencies discuss INL cleanup efforts 

Twin Falls, ID
 
March 22, 2006 � Twin Falls, Idaho

By Misti Lockie Times-News correspondent 

TWIN FALLS -- The Department of Energy and the Idaho Department
of Environmental Quality held a joint open house for the public
Tuesday evening in Twin Falls to share information about Idaho
Cleanup Project efforts at the Idaho National Laboratory.

The meeting, held in the Herrett Center on the CSI campus,
showcased different aspects of the Idaho Cleanup Project through
large displays and public information handouts. DOE and Idaho
DEQ representatives were on hand to field questions from the
public.

Contractors affiliated with the DOE also attended to assist with
the open house session. Boise-based contractor CH2M-WG combines
the capabilities of CH2M HILL and Washington Group International
to lead the cleanup effort for DOE. No specific presentations
were made.

There was a sparse turnout by the public, but those who attended
were intent on the information presented.

"We are here to share the status of the Cleanup Project with the
public, and provide an opportunity for folks to get information
about what is going on there now and what is slated for the
future," said Alan Jines, an environmental engineer with DOE.

In addition to the public open house, the Citizens Advisory
Board for disposal at the site met in Twin Falls the same day to
discuss issues. Board member Dick Buxton, of Boise, feels the
open house complements their work concerning waste disposal at
INL.

"This [meeting] is highly necessary," Buxton said. "I wish more
of the public would come out."

The INL and the cleanup of nuclear wastes there is in the
spotlight recently because of a dispute between the state of
Idaho and the DOE concerning types of waste to be removed. This
dispute -- although it was not the main focus of the meeting --
was discussed by some who attended.

"It is important for us to be at this meeting to provide our
view of the information to the public, even though we may
disagree in court," said Lezlie Aller, Idaho DEQ Division of INL
Oversight and Radiation Control employee.

Twin Falls podiatrist Peter Rickards disagreed.

"What ticks me off are all these shiny pictures and the DOE and
the state in a room together -- my tax dollars used to advance
the nuclear industry and lie to people."

Rickards, who hopes to win a primary to run for state
representative in the next election, thinks the DOE and the
state are missing an important opportunity.

"We have 20 years of plutonium waste spread over 88 acres out
there, just leaking into the flood zone," Rickards said. "We
have a chance to contain this now, and the state and DOE are
slowly letting it leak away."

On signs displayed at the meeting, the DEQ stated that 30,000
cubic meters of buried transuranic waste would be sent to a New
Mexico site in coming years.

The DOE, however, is disputing the clarity of a 1995 agreement
with the state concerning that waste. They (DOE) contend that
the agreement referred only to transuranic waste stored above
ground.

The decision now lies in Boise with U.S. District Judge Edward
Lodge.

DOE representatives declined to comment on the court case.
However, DEQ policy advisor and attorney Kathleen Trever stated
she had testified for the state in the case.

"The type of transuranic waste, whether subsurface or above
ground, is what is in dispute here," said Trever.

According to a brochure available at the open house, the Idaho
Cleanup Project covers five different areas that range from
reactor sites to the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering
Center. For more information about the Idaho Cleanup Project,
visit www.idahocleanupproject.com.

Times-News correspondent Misti Lockie lives in Twin Falls. She
can be reached at mistiokie@hotmail.com.   

published at magicvalley.com on Wednesday, March 22, 2006   

  
Copyright � 2006, Lee Publications Inc.
 Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of The Times-News,
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************